IOTHECA INDICA; 4 COLLECTION OF ORIENTAL WORKS PUBLISHED UNDER THE PATRONAGE OF THE Bon. Court of Directors of the Bast Invia Company, AND THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF THE ASIATIC SOCIETY OF BENGAL. No. 141. :
* ऋ +न 1 01 ननम् न्यु aca Ds ast Rata तन नस रस ------~- ae = १
0)
|| midi |} 1 ॥॥॥ Pitti, -- -
tal
a \ = ६ ५५॥॥ न "५ 2
Ay ,४ ५4१. ए (^
^ एण १
~~~
६ ॥|॥ 3 1-1|1१11॥। ~) ९
13 (^ We 14 ik
१ Wael 24
ag any r
; ५ qf lk
4--% -8
= 10001111 g { 1
ar rs ie a ghee ५४८ न्क
कै ^
न ~ न क ~ "द"
aoe sce = १ Se ahi eg ee in = =
साह्खुप्रवचदनभाव्यम्। THE SANKHYA-PRAVACHANA-BHASHYA, A COMMENTARY ON THE APHORISMS OF THE HINDU ATHEISTIC PHILOSOPHY ;. Br VIJNANA BHIKSHU.
एणा py Firz-Epwarp Hatt, M. A,
EPR RUE TO eee ree
A RRP
Member of the Asvatic Socvely af Renaal, of the Ainerican Oriental Society, and of the -1, । 44 ८५५९१ ९८१८१ Sooty of Deth.
FASCICULUS III.
CALCUTTA : PRINTED BY J. THOMAS, AT THE BAPTIST MISSION PRESS. 1857,
धिक पका 11, ERR Rt LIE EAE A a PS ln te Pd tt At POA ALAA A SEAL
E fer ५ Price 10 Annas ver number , 1 shilling 8d., im England ८ :
nanan न क ma 11 वश्च प
I RR 9, TT th
RL RRA TARR TR ee
Dat Ti vit
4 *
Pas १६. - » ay ४ ie, क ० ee १ #
; ४1 BIBLIOTHECA INDICA: ...
‘ ay BF, Ceri gy ट is x Me ४ ॥ s
™ Yay + 4 A ^ न Te MN at « ५१.
COLLECTION OF ORIGINAL WORKS
PUBLISHED UNDER INE PALRONAGE OF THE
on. Court of ऋ 1८6४5 of the Bast India Company,
AND THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF THE
ASIATIC SOCIETY OF BENGAL.
THE SANKHYA-PRAVACHANA-BH ASHYA, A COMMENTARY ON THE APHORISMS OF THE HINDU ATHEISTIC PHILOSOPHY ; By VIJNANA BHIKSHU. Epirep By Firrz-Epwarp Tanz, M. A,
Member of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, of the American Oriental Socrety, and of the Archeological Soaety of Dethi
| स 1, , Hore re NA + ५
CALCUTTA: PRINTED BY J. THOMAS, AT TILE BAPTIST MISSION PRESS. 1856,
EDITORS PREFACE.
The title which the Hindus apply to their atheistic* theory,
* “Cenendant, 11 n’est guére supposable que Colebrooke se soit trompé en disant que Kapila me 11066 de Dieu. Il n’a fait que reproduive les accusations directes que l’Inde elle-méme a portées contre lui; et, comme ces accusations incontestables ne sont pas justifi€es plemement par les slokas de la Kamka, 1] reste que ce 8016201 les Sotttras qu les justifient. Dans aucun de ceux que nous avons traduts, cette deplorable doctrine ne s’est montrée positivement & découvert , mais je crois pouvoir affirmer, dés 4 pré- sent, quelle est en effet dans quelques autres, comme l’affirment les com- mentateurs mdiens et Colebrooke.” M. Barthélemy Samt-Hulawe: Pre- mier Mémoire sur le Sankhya, pp 27], 272.
Again, of Colebrooke as entertammg the view that Kapila is atheistic: <] Vavart empruntée lu-méme aux commentateurs mdiens.” Id., ibid., p. 5,
Tlus 1s searcely exact. Colebrooke, the last of men to condescend, as a general thing, to statgments m tram, does much more than ^ sumply re- produce” the charge of atheism agamst Kapila, “borrowing it from Indian commentators.” He refers, by numbers, to several of Kapila’s own aphorisms, as bemg णाल atheistic; and he translates one of them—I., 92—by the words “there 1s no proof of God’s existence.” Miscell. Essays, Vol. L., pp. 251, 252. See, further, 1. 92—99; IIL, 56-57; V., 2—12, and 46; VI, 64, of Kapila’s Aphorisms.
A very cursory glance at Indian commentators, at least on the Sinkhya, would have evinced to M. Saint-Hhlaive, that they are, mostly, as delicate as he 1s himself, m respect of charging Kapila with the denial of God.
In the Padma-purdua, latter section, Pdshandotpatt chapter, Jaimim and Kapila are called sages of the témasa order, and ther writings are termed noris’ ward,
2
is that of Kapila’s Sdnkhya ;* this epithet being variously under- stood, in accordance with the several acceptations of its imme- diate primitive, sankhydé. Inthe Mahdbhdrata, sdnkhya is allied to parisankhyéna and parisankhyd, ‘ exhaustive enumeration.’t
The author of the Shad-dars’ ana-samuchchaya, a Jaina compendium, cor- responding to Madhava A'charya’s Sarva-dars’ana-sangraha, says, in the tone of one who retails a familar fact :
साडः father चित् चिदीञश्रदेवताः।
* Sdnkhya 18 the denommation common to Kapila’s system and to Patan- jalr’s.
M. Saint-Hilaire, in the openmg words of his Analysis of the Sankhya, confounds the paronymes sankhyd and sdnkhya < “Le mot de Sinkhya, qui est devenu le nom du systéme de Kapila, sigmfie nombre, et, pris adjective- ment, numéral. Il signifie encore, dans une acception assez voisine: calcul, supputation, jugement, raisonnement.’? Premer Mémoire sur le Sankhya, p. 19.
Dr. Roer also says: “The term Sdnkhya has two meanings, enumeration and investigation.’ Lecture on the Sankhya Philosophy, p. 8.
The word Sdnkhya, as affording a vanety of significations, 1s made the subject of a laborious pun, फ the initial couplet of Bhaskara A’charya’s Biya-- gamita.
+ साङष्टयन्ञानं प्रवच्छामि परि सडन्द्यान द् शंनम्। XIL, 11393. Also: साङन्द्यद् शेनमेतावत् परिसडः. न् द् शनम् | we ¡: प्रकुवैते चेवप्र तिच प्रच॑चते। त्वानि च चतुवि त् परिसषडः गय ततः | साङ्ष्याः द प्रक्त्यातुनि wa विं ay एव. XIT,, 11409.10,
One of my MSS. reads, mn the first of these two passages, parisankhyd~ midars’anam ; and, in the second, parisankhydna-dars'anam. The same MS, has sankhyam prakurute in place of sdnkhydh prakurvate. Vijnina Blakshu, at p. 8, has sankhydm prakurvate, and tena sdnkhydh praktriutdh mstead of parisankhydya tatiwatah, But, be the best readings, among these, as they may, 1t 1s abundantly plam, from the context, that Viynana errs m supposing that any allusion is here made to sankhyd, or any cognate word, m the sense of “ratiocmation” or the hke. Colebrooke, who neglected to pursne the
schohast’s citation to the fountam-head, took it, on trust, as correct, and ध renders sankhyd by “judgment.” Mascell. Essays, Vol, I., 7. 229,
3
Sankhyd, as the proximate source of sdnkhya, denotes, greeably to a contemporary speculator of some local celebrity, ‘enun-
व 1
Nilakantha Chaturdhara, m his commentary on the Mahdbhdrata, the Bhérata-bhdva-dipa, meffectually labours, with the aid of arbitrary con~- structions, to gloss away the palpable mport of the passages given above. In short, his predilections as a Vedanti reduce his exegetical merit, wherever the system of Kapila is under discussion, to that of perverse mgenuity.
In citing the Mahdbhdrata, or m referrmg to it, I follow, for convenience, the notation, mght or wrong, of the prnted edition. But I everywhere verify, or correct, the text of this edition by three very good MSS. whucli I have consulted.
Colebrooke says: “A system of philosophy in which precision of reckon- ing 1s observed in the enumeration of 18 principles, 1s denominated Sdnkhya ; a term which has been understood to sigmfy numeral, agreeably to the usual acceptation of sankhyd, number: and hence its analogy to the Pythagorean philosophy has been presumed. But the name may be taken to imply,” &c. Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., p. 229.
Adverting to these words, M. Samt-Hilare observes: “Colebrooke s’est laissé tromper par V’apparence et par une fausse analogie, en pronongant le nom de Pythagore 2 cété de celm de Kapila.” Premer Mémoire sur le Sankhya, p. 19.
Agam, ibid, p. 20: “Si Colebrooke a eu tortde rapprocher le nom de Pythagore de celui du philosophe mdien,” &c.
But Colebrooke, as 18 quite obvious from his guarded and adversative mode of expression, delivers, in the preceding extract, neither his own opinions nor even opinions which, pending the adduction of further evidence, he would be thought to accept. Professor Wilson—Sdnkhya-karikd, Preface, p. xii— cites, it is true, the words “and hence 1४8 analogy to the Pythagorean plilo- sophy has been presumed,”’ and without comment as to the paternity of the surmise. It may have escaped him that he had formerly written : “ The first Indian School, the leading tenets of which are described by Mr. (01९. brooke, 18 the Sénkhya, a term which has been understood to signify ^ 1710 meral,’ and which, therefore, perhaps suggested to Si William Jones, lis comparison of it to the Pythagorean doctrine.”’ Quarterly Oriental Magazine, Vol. IV., pp. 11, 12: September, 1825.
Colebrooke alludes, without doubt, to the followmg passage: “*On the present occasion, 1t will be sufficient to say that the oldest head of a sect whose entire work 1s preserved, was—according to some authors—Kapila; not [2] the divme personage, a reputed grandson [?] of Brahma, to whom-
B 2
4
ciation pursuant to a stated order’* Another writer holds that it bears the import of ‘ consideration.’+ Elsewhere, it is explain- ed by ‘right knowledge;’t and the author of the commentary m the following pages, defines it by ‘representation of the real nature of spirit, on the basis of an accurate discriminative ac- quaintance with it, as contrasted with nature’$ Consonantly to
Krishna compares himself m the Gitd, but a sage of bis name, who mvented the Sdnkhya, or Numeral, philosophy ; which Krishna himself appears to im- pugn, m his conversation with Arjuna; and which, as far as I can recollect it from a few original texts, resembled, im part, the metaphysics of Pythagoras, and, in part, the theology of Zeno.” Siw Wilham Jones’s Works, Vol. I, pp. 163, 164: 4४0 ed of 1799.
Sir Wilham, at an earlier period, had pushed his hypothetical analogies much further than this. “Of the Pllosophical Schools it will be sufficient, here, to remark that the first Nydya seems analogous to the Peripatetic ; the second, sometimes called Vais’eshika, to the Tonic; the two Mimdnsas, of which the second 1s often distinguished by the name of Veddnia, to the Platome ; the tirst Sdénkhya, to the Itake, and the second, or Pdtanjala, to the Stoic, philosophy . so that Gautama [Gotama] corresponds with Aristotle ; Kanada, with Thales; Jaimini, with Socrates; Vy4sa, with Plato; Kapila, with Pythagoras; and Patanjali, with Zeno. But an accurate comparison between the Grecian and Indian Schools would require a considerable volume.” Ibid., Vol. L, pp. 360, 361.
* RG WSs | सम्यक् क्रमपूवंकं यानं क नं यस्यां सा vert maya विचारणा यत् तासधि त्य तं त त् 1ङ््यभिन्युते w al Deva Tirtha Swami: Sdnkhya-taranga, ad init.
+ gafiufaaarai wean विचारः । cafe त्य aa: wee दति साड प्ट्वयत्यत्ति : aera | Raghundtha Tarkavégis’a Bhattichdrya: Sdn- khya-tattwa-vildsa, ad iit.
{ awe सम्यग् ज्ञानम् | तस्मिन् प्रकाशमानमा्मतच्चे साडः | Sridhara Swimi: Subodhiné, on 11. 39, of the 5044 ad-gitd.
Sarya Pandit, the astronomer, annotating, m his Paramdrtha-prapa, the same passage of the 2८4, almost copies Siidhara: ङः 1 सम्यग् ज्ञान I तस्सिन प्रकाश्यमा AW Meee |
§ The original will be found near the top of p. 8. As for the italies noticeable mm the test, I would remark, once for all, that I use them to dis- tinguish ellipses. Sanskrit vocables, also, when transliterated, I give, as a
e rule, in the same style of type,
5
some sacred text, as cited, with approval, by S’ankara A’charya,* sdnkhya imports ‘ ascertainmeut of the truth concerning pure soul.’ S’ankara, again, and in like manner taking no account of the etymology of the word, interprets it, on his own authority, by ‘the conception that the qualities of purity, passion, and darkness, are perceptible by me; and that I, bemg distinct from them, am the spectator of their operations, eternal, hetero- gencous from the qualities, soul.’+
* In his commentary on the Vishnu-sahasra-ndma from the Mahébhérata, XIII., 7006 The definition to which S’ankara accedes, may be from some Purina. It is not to be found im the legal institutes of Vydsa, where I had hoped to ineet with it. The passage m which this definition oceurs, together with the verse which the passage explains, here follow :
ayia: पित्लाचायैः watt मदिनोपतिः।
मषः कपिलाचाये दति सविश्ेषणएमेकं नाम मदा खासा टपिदखेति wets: aa वेदस्य GUAT! न्येतु वेदै दशद्शंनाटषयः | कपिला wee war त्रत विज्ञानस्याचायैदखेति कपिलाचायेः। मरपिखासै कपिलाचाय॑यति we- पिकपिदाचायेः।
wal तच्विन्ञानं साडः मित्यभिधीयते)
र्ति यास. तेः। घिं wed कपि ` हान्तमिति aa) सिद्धा कपिला निर्ति aera |
tae aa se र स्ल्मांसि गृणा aa दश्या अदं तेभ्योऽ सद्यापार Tt चरिभूतेा नित्या गणविललचणए खा ति चिन्तनम्। Gité-bhdshya, XIIL., 12.
The repugnance of the Vedantis to the Sankhya can easily be illustrated. The word sdnkhya, substantive or adjective, occurs, in the Bhagavad-gtid, 170 five several passages: IL, 39; III, 3; V., 4, 5; XIII, 24; XVIII, 13. In three of these passages, the first, and the last two, the theory of Kapila 18 clearly mtended. Yet the commentators, who hold, with few exceptions, to the Vedanta, are most averse, mm the majority of these cases, from owning that even the existence of atheism 18 recoguised by the poem. In the three instances above mentioned, they, accordingly, explain sdnkhya by dtman, éima-tattwa, bhakli-s’dstra, Brahma, para-pumdn; sankhyd bemg defined, respectively, by tattwa-jndna, adhydtma-s' dstra, bhakt, upanishad, upanishad. Ags rendenngs of the first, we also find dhydnin, jnéna, paramdima-vastu-viveka, paramiriha-vastu-viveka, vedinta, and yathdvasthita-vishayayd buddhydnu- sanhita-nirnayak ‘a conclusion mduced on the cognition of a reality.’
But, whatever may have been the sense originally intended, and perhaps now lost, of the term in question, it is not impro- bable that it carried a reference, more or less obscure, to the radical independence of scriptural authority, which may be affirmed of Kapila. In the comprehensive spirit of all Hin- duism, it is true that he has frequent recourse to Vaidika vouchers* for subordinate articles of belief. Yet, in spite of this semblance of catholicity, it is obvious that the essentials of his system must be justified, if justified at all, rather by an appeal to reason than to revelation. The Sdnkhya, indeed, with all its folly and fanaticism, may, for a Hindu school of doctrine,
Where Kapila’s tenets are, in all likelihood, not alluded to, sdnkhya 1s said to mean bdhagavat and sannydsa; sankhyd corresponding to kirtandtmikd bhaktih and samyag dtma-mati. Additional synonymes of the former, simi- larly employed, are bhakta, bhakti, yndna-nishtha, jnana-nishthd, 121410४, mskpépa-purusha, sannydsin, s‘uddhdntahkarana, and s‘uddha-chetas.
Sankara A’chdrya; Gétd-bhdshya- Raminuja A’charya; Gétd-bhdshya ` Surya Pandit; Paramdrtha-prapd. S‘ridhara Swimi; Subodhiné Madhu- sidana Saraswati; Bhagavad-gitd-gudhértha-dipké. Kalyina Bhatta; Ra- stka-ranjant. Jayaréma Tarkavagis’a; Bhagavad-gitd-sardriha-sangraha Sadinanda Vydsa; Bhagavad-gitd-bhdva-makés'a+ Pas'dcha-bhishya, by anon.: Kes’ava Bhatta; Gitd-tattwa-prakdésiké Ramachandra Saraswati; Gitd-tdtparya-s'uddhi.
Of these wiiters, Rimanuja, Madhustidana, Sadinanda, and the anonym - ous author of the Pais‘écha-bhdshya, refuse to hear of there being any allu- sion, in the Gitd, to the system of Kapila.
Adwaiténanda, m his Brakma-vidydbharana, an. expositonal work connected with the Aphorisms of the Vedanta, suggests that the word panchavins' ati, adduced from the sacred writings as demarking the number of the Sankhya puneiples, may mtend 20 >< 5 mstcad of 20 + 5. In disproof of this conceit, sce one of the Sansknt extracts at p.2, supra; aud the Wahdbhd- raid, XII., passnn, but, particularly, chapters 307, 308, 309.
* These citations from the Vedas can hardly be referred to a politic affecta- tion of orthodoay; to the quicting, on easy temns, of the misgivings of the unwary. The Jainas, who go the length of openly denying the divine org of the Vedas, and who repudiate their authonty generally, yet admit it when reconcilable with ther own tencts. As. Res., Vol, XVII, p. 24s.
>) é
be allowed a fair share of circumspection. In its dogmatism it has restricted itself, for the most part, to the supersensuous, 8 phrase too frequently convertible with the indeterminate. It would, accordingly, often have been difficult to demonstrate that it was not in the right; and it has signified nothing that it was in the wrong: the Hindus never having been known to approve themselves, ethically, any worse for their atheism than for their theism. What is more, the scrupulous vagueness with which 1t touches on the subject of matter, is, surely, something in its favour. It may have gone widely astray in the cloud-land of metaphysics ; but 1t offers few parallels to the puerile hylology of the Nydya. It may contravene the spiritual intuitions of humanity ; but it has rarely called down the gods from Olympus, to move the derision of modern science. Other praise of the Sankhya than this, would, however, scarcely consist with the exactions of just criticism. On the assumption that it has come down to us legitimately elucidated, it is next to impossible, not- withstanding its fantastic show of method, to trace, in it, a single vestige of consistency. As apprehended in the present day, correctly or incorrectly, it must, in short, be ranked, with every other, even the most perspicuous, scheme of atheism, as little better than a chaotic impertinence.*
atm tra ---+--~--~
* The notion that the existence of God 1s susceptible of dialectic demon- stration, has been surrendered, 1m later times, by most Christian theologians of any credit: it now beg, more ordinanly, mamtaimed that our conviction of deity, on grounds apart from revelation, reposes solely on ongimal consciousness, antecedent to all proof. The idea of God must, mdced, necessarily be postulated as the basis of all human speculation. See Hagen- bach’s History of Doctrines, passim.
Kant declares that the various objective arguments for the establishment of theism, may be reduced to the teleological, the cosmological, and the ontological. All these, I am told, have been urged, by the IlJindus, in combating the Bauddhas, the Mimansakas, and the Sankhyas. But further investigation would be requisite before I could produce these argumenty, as employed by the Brahmans, with any approach to a complete exhibition.
8
Indistinct allusion seems to be made, by the author of the Séukhya Aphorisms, to anterior* cultivators of the atheistic philosophy, and, in so many words, to ‘ venerable preceptors’} of the theory. Of the latter, Sanandanat alone is specified by name, and once only: but, equally with all the authorities less distinctly commemorated in company with him, his writings, if he ever wrote, have long been forgotten. Panchas ikha, though, like Sanandana, expressly mentioned, is yet denied his honour- able designation. On the first occasion§ where his opinion is reported, it is noted with disapprobation; and, in the sole remaining instance|| where it is brought forward, it is dismissed
No one of these arguments makes more directly agamst such atheism as that of the Sankhya, than the cosmological proof, or, rather, para- logism; 1t having been shown to be built on a logical fiction This argument is admirably put by Diodorus of Tarsus, who hved in the fourth century :
ॐ *# € 8८ rug dyayrov Néyou adrav तमो कयो, TO शराव, ddwarwTeEpoy द०/6८" 7007) yap 74605 éorlv dpyduevov, kal otk dv ris elon 700 गो dvapxov' Kat cuvrduaus ला TOV 07000८८८ Kal TOV e€ abrdv Cowy TE Kab Cupdrav # ma&voopos TpoTn, Kal TOY oXNMdTWY Kal XpwUdTwY Kal TOY c\Awv वणवा ¶ 7०८५८११ = 0८0००००, pdvov odyt guwvyv adinot, pyre Gyéytov pte atrdéuarov voile tov Kédapov, pyr av dapovdytov, cov 6९ atrots kal 70 elvan Kal 70 ed elvar waparxduevov, cadds cddvar Kat adiordxtos €{०7८०6०८, Photu Bibhotheca, ed. Bekker., p. 209, b.
* * * * Por change 18 an incident that has a beginning; and one would never speak of change as without a beginning. And, to be summary, the all-wise Change of the elements, and of the thence arising animate beings and bodies; and the intricate diversity of forms, and colowrs, and other properties; all but give forth an articulate voice, teling us not to think of the universe as unortginated, or self-actuated, or, yet, without a Providence; but to know of a truth, and to be unhesitatingly assured, that there 15 a God, who endowed them with both bemg and excellent being.
* Til, 4}. + A’charydh: V., 31. { VI, 69. 9
| VI, 68. Vedanti Mahadeva, annotating V., 32, mfers, simply from the name of Panchas’ikha bemg given m the smgular number, that Kapila purposes to mark him as a separatist. The singular must, then, be
9
with an air of sufferance rather than of approval. Of Sanandana nothing is known further than that he is classed among the mind-engendered progeny of Brahmaé.* Panchas‘ikha is usu- ally described in the same enigmatical {61118 : but the Mahd- dhdratat also speaks of him as having had a human mother, Kapila; and it assigns him to the line of Paras/ara.$
The Sankhya philosophy is, nevertheless, ascribed, by indi- genous tradition, to Kapila,|| the putative author of the atheistic sentences, the Sdnkhya-stutra{ and Tatiwa-samdsa ; though the
taken to indicate, as compared with the plural, an inferior degree of respect. But Sanandana, though dignified with the title of dchdrya, 1s yet spoken of, by Kapila, m the singular number. Mahddeva’s words are: प fa Za - वचनेन परमतसतदिति waafa | It may, however, be doubted whether the use, in Sanskrit, of the pluralis majestaticus be of any antiquity, not- withstandmg Sayana A’charya’s opinion to the contrary. See Professor Wilson’s Translation of the Rag-veda, Vol. I., p. 201, foot-note. + See note at p. 15, 1098. { See the same note. t XIL, 7895. At XIT., 7886, of the same work, if is said: यमाङः पि “arg परमि भ्र पति । स मन्येतेन equ वि पयतिदहि a_i
‘T can imagine that he whom the Sankhyas call Kapila, the ighty sage, the patriarch, is, in person, under this form, exciting our admiration.’
Such 18 the unmistakable sense of the couplet ; and so thinks Nilakantha Chaturdhara: स feel तेन प fi we 1 way ra area Yet Professor Wilson understands the meaning to be, that Panchas’ikha 1s here “named.... Kapila.” Sdnkhya-kdrikd, p. 190. Dr. Weber repeats this mistake : “als auch Kapila heisst.” Indische Studien, Vol. L., p. 433.
§ Janaka, clueftam of Mithila, and disciple of Panchas’ikha, says:
पराशर WAAR ABT नः। fra q शि दंशिष्यपर तः॥ XID, 11875.
|| In only a single text that I know of, is the Sankhya imputed to 84४४; Mahdbhdrata, XII., 10388. At the same place, the Yoga also 18 said to have origmated with this divmity.
“| Swapnes’wara, acquamted as he was with the aphorisms of Panchas‘ikha, attributes to him the Sdnkhya-sitra also. He accounts for 168 bearmg the title of Kapila, by the crcumstance that Kapila mitiated the Sankhya tradi- tion as set forth in these aphorisms. By way of illustration, he adduces the
C
10
accuracy of this assignment rests, it seems probable, on no better evidence than the fact, that such treatises of atheism as existed prior to those attributed to Kapila, being superseded by his own more developed, or less incongruous, enunciations, were col- signed, at an early period, to oblivion.
But it does not seem imperative to include, among these ancient productions, the works of Panchasikha also.* Even conceding that Pauchas’ikha, conformably to the ordinary ac- count of him, was a disciple of A’suri,t who is, in turn, said to have studied under Kapila;t yet the measure of a scholastic
notorious appropriation to Manu, of the code of laws set forth by Bhrigu. His meaning 1s, that Kapila only propounded the matter of the Sdénkhya- sutra, whose present shape 18 due to Panchas‘ikha. He may, then, be sup- posed to set to the account of humulity, the absence from Panchas‘thha’s name, m the Sankhya Aphorisms, of the hononmfic title of A’chdrya. 4291708 this 1t might be argued, that a samt 80 lowly would be hkely to mention, at least a few times, the name of the leading rabbi of Ing school. Yet, on the contrary, be reframs from all mention of Kapula, while he twice speaks of himself. But, m justice to Swapues’wara, 1t should be added that he gives what 1s repeated above, as nothmg butrumour. Ilis words are: पञ्चमि ; स्व र reftfaw | कापिलमिति प्रसिद्धिर् सम््र- yew was संदितायासिव मनु समाष्या |
* Colebrooke judges otherwise. Speaking of the Sdnkhya-sitra, he says: “Tt 1s, avowedly, not the earhest treatise on this branch of philosophy: since it contams references to former authorties, for particulars which are but briefly hmted in the sutras; and it quotes some by name, and, among them, Panchas’ikha, the disciple of the reputed author’s pupil: an anachron- ism which appears decisive.” Miscell. Essays, Vol. L., p. 232.
+ Mahdbhérata, XII, 7890, 7895. Elsewhere, Panchas'ikha 19 spoken of as having been mmstructed, with Jagishavya, hy Kapila himself. AQ ma- purana, fist section, chapter 9, s‘loka 119. See, also, the note at the foot of page 16, infra
{ Bhdgavata-purdna, 1. 3, 11. Also अद् विद्धान् निमाणचित्तमयिष्ठाग्र कारु्णाद् भगवान् पर पिरसुरथं जिज्ञासमानाय तन्त्र प्रावाच। ४६५४५; + tanjala-bhdshya, 1. 25. Notice will be taken, m a subsequent page, of the discrepant explanations of the term ddi-mdwdn, m this passage. But the commentators are unanimous in understanding, by paramarsha, Kapila.
11
descent has no essential correspondence to that of a natural ge. neration. More especially, the position that Kapila takes ac- count of his own literary successor at the second remove, may be granted to offer but little violence to probability, if we simply suppose that the sage originally disseminated his tenets orally, and that they had undergone modification at the hands of sectaries from his proper school, before he committed them to a written form.*
Panchasikha is known, by scanty fragments, as the author of a collection of philosophical aphorisms.t One other perform-
+ As an ungrateful alternative to silence, I have thus attempted to reduce to harmony, materials, m themselves, at first appearance, rather mtractable ; but which present, 1t may be, a distorted reflex of historical verity.
As the first step in dealing rationally with the mmd-born sons of Brahma, we must consider them as brethren, not as brothers. But, rather than depart, m favour of common sense, from the strictest letter of the theogo- 11168, I have found the pandits disposed to fall back on their grand solution of all difficulties as to time, space, and dividuals, the transparently indolent dogma of cyclical renovations of mundane events. These iterations admit- ting of an indefimte number of changes as to particulars, any body may, at last, be every body; and it thus becomes a very easy matter to make hght of ordinary chronological sequence
+ A single one of them is given, as such, in Vydsa’s Pétanjala-bhéshya, L,3:U मेव awa < तरव रदष्टनम्| Kshemananda, in his notes on the Tattwa-samisa, twice quotes this as a sutra ; and Vachaspati Mis’ra, Vijnana Blukshu, and Nagoji Bhatta, consent im assigning it to Panchas’ikha,
In Vyasa’s Pdtanjala-bhdshya we find, at IL,13: सखल्पः सङ्करः सपरि- हारः सप्रत्यवसपः कुशल. नापकषायास |e Te Whe” eae यच्ायमावापगतः स्वर्ैऽप्यपकषेमल्पं रिष्यति | Of this passage, which 1s un- characterised, by Vyasa, except as bemg by Panchas‘ikha, the Sdénkhya- tattwa-kaumudt artes the words ख ल्पः सङ्कर सपरिारः स॒प्रत्यव षः | Swap- nes’wara, m his annotations on the Kaumudt, still dissecting, says that the first three of these words form one aphorism, and the remamme word, another.
So much for Panchasikha’s siéras; and it may be questioned whether
८ 2
tw
12
ance, if not two, is likewise imputed to him; and he, perhaps,
any more samples of them are forthcoming, notwithstandmg Colebrooke’s assertion that they “are frequently ated, and by modern authors on the Sdénkhya.”’ Muscell. Essays, Vol. L, p. 233.
The next work recorded as by Panchas‘ikha, 1s metrical; unless, indeed, as 18 quite possible, the longer extracts, to be given after the following couplets, belong, with one or more of them, to a treatise mixed of prose and verse.
eq चा ज्ञानेन दितीये राग ङत्तयात्। aera तोय याष्यातं माचलच् .॥
This couplet is quoted, by Vijnina Bhikshu, m us Vyndnémpita, with the following introduction: चिविघं are मणा तलसमासा भष्यप fa चायः This is the best voucher I have for advanemg that Panchas‘ikha commented on the Tattwa-samdsa, of whieh the words चिविधो माचः do really constitute a topic. This couplet 1s again quoted, partially, by Viynana, im his Yoga-vartika, as well as nm Bhav& Ganes’a’s Yogdnus'dsana-sttra-oritic ; and im full, by Ksheminanda on the Tattwa-samdsa, m the Saénkhya-krama-dipikd, and by Bhava Ganes’a in the Tattwa-ydthérthya-dipana, Various readings of it are: ddau for ddyas, hi for tu; vimoksho for tu moksho ; kritsna for Arich- chhra , and kshayah for kshaydt.
Bhavé Ganes’a, nm his Yogdénus’dsana-sitra-vritti, refers the stanza just given, directly to Panchas’ikhha; but the same author, in his Tattwa-ydihdr thya-dipana, ntroduces these verses, and the three couplets following, by expressions importing that they were borrowed, not from, but through Panchas ikha.
पञ्चय एति तच्लन्नो यचक्रुना्रमे fara: | टी ow fe वापि मुच्यते नाच daa |
Variants: yatra-tatra for yatra-kutra ; ratah for sthitah ; and mundt ja
sakhé and 5४ mundt jatt for jatt mundi s‘ukhi. प्रा aa तु बनेन तथा वेकारिकेण च। द्चिणाभि wa बद्धो न्तृविवतेते।
Vanants: prékritena chafor prékritena tu; and baddho’yam tu nigadyat baddho ninyena muchyate, and bandho २४५१४ cha nigadyate, for badd. jantur vivartate
wuts ase तं यथावज्गण रूपाण्यधिदवतं च। वि, पा 7 गतदाषसङ्खागृणां WE aU: युज्यत॥
Variants: दवदव for tattwént; swarupaw for swarupdni; 2400 1 papmd ; and dbhuyyate for yusyate.
13
Lie theistic Sénkhya as well as on the atheistic.
$© cotplets and that preceding them, the first and the third
quotations, are also found in the Sénkhya-krama-diptkd. re cited both there and in the Sénkhya-sttra-vivarana. een spoken of above; and the second 1s 17 Ksheméa- twtw ८२-- 5471054, and 171 Gaudapada on the Sdnkhya-kérikd. ervable that Bhavé Ganes’a does not quote a syllable as Panchasikha, that does not occur in the Sénkhya-krama- > accordingly, a presumption that Bhavaé Ganes’a took these lls work, and under the impression that 1t was by Pancha- Suspicion 18 strengthened by the second exordial stanza of ‘rth a—dipana, where its author clearly enough वृक्षच 8 to anchas‘ikha on the Tattwa-samdésa : स्टच्चस्यस्लस्व्यव्या 1 पच्चशि च। षते : रखते तच्याथाथ्येदीपनम्॥ >. to Panchas‘ikha, of the Sdnkhya-krama-dipikd, if ever ned, would at once be mvaldated by mdicatmng the fact, Panchas’ikha 18 made, m the work itself, supposed free from 2८ im such a manner, namely, with the title of échérya, as to L frowm its author.
extracted below have, in every case, the guarantee of good 1ieir bemeg by Panchas‘tkha. They are given, m the first asa, im his Pdtanjala-bhéshya, anonymously: but three of atators ; Vachaspati Mis‘ra, m the Pdtanala-sitra-bhdshya- aa Bhikshu, m the Yoga-vériika ; and Nagoji Bhatta, in the ~vorittz—bhiéshya-chchhdy a-vydkhyd ; testify, one, or all, to their s for the passage at II., 22, Vachaspati merely says that it 1 authoritative sage; but the two other scholiasts declare it asikha.
ta च्नुविद्यास्मोल्येवं तावत् सम््रजानोत ca इयौ fav 1 ATS Y चच प्रटत्तिच्धाति तीत्युच्यते यया येगिनशित्तै स्थितिपद्-
is quoted and expounded by Kshemananda also, in the Nava-
qe a नाभिप्रतौन्यत सम्यदमनुनन्य्त्या wre न्वानस्त य7व्मव्यापदः सन्वानः स॒ wasstaqe cast चतुष्यद्ा भवव्यविद्या नस्य काश्यस्य च सविपाकस्य। IL, 5. ` _. रूषमा रण्योलविद्यादिभिवि मप न् यात् तचात्रवद्धिं
14.
By the prevalent suffrage of mythology, Kapila* is reputed
1 gg
तक्छयागतुविव नात् स्याद यसात्यन्ति 1 दुः प्रतीकार; द्। दुः देताः
पर दायं द भरतौ रद् श्नात्। तद्या Waa भेद्यता कण्टकस्य मत्तं परि-
दारः कण्टक पादानि गनं पाद् वारुब्यवदितेन वाधिष्ठानम्। wags at वद् साकं स तच प्रतोकारमारभमाणाभेद्जं दुः ` नामरेति। क ra) fear. लम्पिसामण्धात् | IL, 17
wag ल् विष् गृणषु कटव्वकतेरिच yest तुलयातुद्जातोः चतथ तत्किचा- साचिष्छपनौयधमानान् सवंभावानपपत्राननपश्यन् दभन न्यच्छङ्कते। I, 18
अपरिणामिनोौ हि wat रप्रतिसङ्कमा च परिणामिन्यर्थं प्रतिसद्गान्तेव तद- तन्िमनपतति। तस्याश्च प्राप्तचेतन्यापग्रदषरूपाया बद्धिटत्तनकारमाचतया बद्दिव-
त्यविशि 1 दि ज्ञ नदृत्निरित्याष्यायते | IL, 20
घि 1सनादिसंयागाद्धमेसाचाणामप्यनादिः 1a | IL, 22
entrar safer परस्परेण विरुध्यन्ते सामान्यानि लतिश्एथे. स भ्रव- तन्ते, तसादसङ्करः। य 1 रागस्येव कचित् सम्द्ाचार दूति न तद्ानोमन्यतच्रा aa fa Fae सामान्येन ससन्वागत TAT तद् AA AY WIAA AAV | IIL, 13
तस्यद.श्खरवणानामेकशरतिलं east भवति | 77. 40.
Little can safely be conjectured with regard to the character of the work or works from which these sentences were collected by Vyasa. They may be text ; and they may be commentary. Probably they are Sankhya; but, possibly, they pertain to the Yoga. That Panchas’ikha treated of other subjects than the Sankhya, may be mferred from a remark of Vynana Bhikshu’s : asat नामावेऽपि विदुषां vg 1 पञ्चशिखाचा वा ` दूय ` प्रमाणयति। Yoga-vartika, 1. 25.
* The more ordmary mdnasa, or mind-begotten, sons of Brahma vary, as specified in different Puranas, from seven to more than twice that number ; “but,” as Prof. Wilson remarks, “the vanations are of the nature of addi- tions made to an apparently origmal enumeration of but seven, whose names generally recur.” Vishnu-purdna, p. 48, note 2. One such group is made up of Marich, Atri, Anguiras, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratuand Vasishtha ; the well-known ^ seven Rishis.” Mahdbhdrata, XII., 7570 and 13075. Tins list is modified, in the same book of the Mahdbhérata, 7534-5, by the substitution of Daksha for Vasishtha: and, at 13040, by the addition of Manu; thus imcreasing the aggregate to eight. But, however eked out by Pauranika hberality, itis not this catalogue of Brahma’s mind-born pro- geny that 1s to furnish us with Kapila.
15
deen 9 8010. of Brahmas; but he is otherwise described as
7118011 once wrote as follows: “ The founder of the Sdnkhya philo- amed Kapila; who, as one of the seven great Rishis, 1s one of the vhma. There are other accounts of his 01112 ; but none more satis-
Quarterly Oriental Magazine for Sept, 1825; p. 12. That anywere styled ^ one of the seven great Rushis,”’ needs confirma- 111 the emphasis with which other accounts of him are here discre- othing of this 1s to be found m the Translation of the Vishnu-
oke,—Mauscellaneous Essays, Vol. I., p. 229,—yrefers to Gaudapada, of Kapila’s bemg ranked as “one of the seven great Roshis.” 116 collocation of the words in the passage quoted by Gaudap ada, © has turned subject into predicate. The ertation runs thus: qa त प्राकता SUG: | ‘These seven sons of BrahmA were £ ८525.
group of kmdred emanations likewise comprehends seven persons. thiébhérata, XII, 130/8-9, they are said to be Sana, Sanat-sujata, anandana, Sanat-kumara, Kapila, and Sanatana. In the passage all hkelihood from some Purana, near the commencement of Gauda- imentary on the Sdnkhya-kdrikdé, Kapila still appears, but as intro- eral accredited Sankhya doctors, to the extrusion of as many of his ociates: the hst now standing thus; Sanaka, Sananda, Sanftana, 2119, Vodhu, and Panchas‘ikha In the tarpana, or propitiation-ser- , least one school of the Veda, that of Madhyandina, the same per- tvoked, and in the same order, except that the names of A’suri and transposed. See Colebrooke’s Miscell. Essays, Vol.I , p. 144. In the rdna, latter section, Vashnu-vy uha-bheda-varnana chapter, 14, 15, changes, Kapila himself makes way for another; the set now con- Sanaka, Sananda, 81182112, Sanat-kumara, Jata, Vodhu,and Pancha- As. Res. Vol. XT, p.99. The Kuéirma-purdna, former section, chap. 9, with additional alterations, reduces the seven to five; Sanaka, Sanandana, दिप (Rudra?), and Sanat-kumara; whom it qualifies as s. The first three and the last of these five hold, apparently, pecu- 166 in the family of Brahma; since from them, according to Gauda- he forty-third Kadrikd, originated, severally, virtue, knowledge, dis- id irresistible will. The names of these four also occur, unaccom- if they were to be regarded as representative, at IIL, 12, 3, of the —pur ana.
16
an incarnation of Vishnu.* He is also recounted to have been
Sananda and Sanandana are, doubtless, prosodial varieties of the same name; and Jita seems to be put, by metrical licence, for Sanat-sujata.
In the Kvirma-purdna, latter section, V., 18, parts of the two classes of Brah- 11428 mental sons, several new characters bemg added to the first, are named together, thus: Sanat-kumara, Sanaka, Bhngu, Sanatana, Sanandana, Rudra, Angiras, Vamadeva, S’ukra, Atm, Kapila, and Marich. But 1t 18 worthy of ob- servation that this Purana plamly distmguishes the second class, as to origin, from the first. What 15 evidently mtended for the first class, 1s detailed, at VIL, 35—39, of the former section, as made up of Daksha, Maricli, Angiras, Bhngu, Atri, Dharma, Sankalpa, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, and Vasishtha; and the generation of these mdividuals, as there given, 1s very different from what 1 18 10 any of the accounts rendered by Prof. Wilson. See Vishnu-
purdna, p. 50, note. For mstance, the first and the last four are derived, respectively, from Brahma’s préna, uddna, vydna, apdna, and samdna. See, for these terms, Colebrooke’s Miscell. Essays, Vol. L, pp. 356 and 374; also the Sénkhya-kérikd, p. 103. At X., 84, of the same section, the whole eleven are denominated Brahmas; and Brahma 18 stated to have created them by his power as a Yogi. See, also, Vashnupurdna, p. 49.
Further particulars of interest occur at X , 122—1265, of the latter section of the Kéirma-purdna. Sanat-kuméra 1s here said to have mstructed Sam- varta; and he, Satyavrata: Sanandana, Pulaha ; and he, Gautama: Angiras, Bharadwaja: Kapila, Jaigishavya and Panchas‘ikha: Sanaka, Paras‘ara ; and he, Valmiki. This Purana is related, at its conclusion, to have been transmitted from Brahma as follows. Brahma communicated it to Sanaka and Sanat-kumara; Sanaka, to Devala; Devala, to Panchas’ikha; and Sanat- kumara, to Vyasa.
There 1s, clearly, no countenance, in the analogy of the Hmdu hagiogony, for the else plausible surmise, that a complete history of the mdnasa sons of Brahma, might, if recoverable, possibly go to show that the term by which they are known, may originally have borne a less mystical signification than that of mind-born. Its mtention could never have been to discriminate the
literate portion of the Brahmanidae from their less learned kinsmen
* Mahébhérata, IIl., 1896 and 8880. Raméyana, I., 41,2—4 and 25. At I., 41, 2—4, इ णाइ destruction of the sons of Sagara is predicted Pudma- purdna, latter section, Vishnu-vydha-bheda-varnana chapter. Vishnu-purd- na, p. 3/7. Bhdgavata-purana, 1, 3, 11 ; where Kapila stands the fifth of the twenty-four incarnations of Vishnu. See, also, at p. 6, supra, the verse from
17
born as the son of Devahtiti;* and, again, is identified with one of the Agnis, or 168. Lastly, it is affirmed that there have been two Kapilas: the first, an embodiment of Vishnu; the
the Mahdbhdrata, XIII., 7006, with S‘ankara A’charya’s commentary. See, further, the passage at p. 10, supra, quoted m Vy4sa’s Pdtanyala-bhdshya. The later commentators on this work, Viynana Bhikshu and Nagoji Bhatta, understand the word ddi-vidwén, or ^ primeval sage,’ to mean, here, Vishnu. Vachaspati Mis’ra, though recognising Kapila as an incarnation of Vishnu, considers ‘primeval sage’ to refer to the former, reappearing on earth after absorption 1110 the divme essence. The remamder of Vachaspati’s remarks are not very intelligible; or else my MSS. are corrupt.
Schlegel, im his note on the Rémdyane, 1. 41, 3, remarks: “ De hoe Vish- nus cognomine et munere non habeo quod expromam. Vix Opus est monere plane [11716 alienum est Kapilum, philosophiae rationalis (sdnkhya) auciurem , quamvis ct hune discipuli mimis ambitios: nummmis plenum, imo ipsum m mortali corpore piaesentem Vishnum fuisse iactavermt. Quam opmionem 1unuit auctor Bhagavad-gitae, Lact. X., 26.” It must now appear that the notion which Schlegel here dismisses so peremptorily, 1s much better fortifi- ed, by mythology, than he, to all appearance, apprehended.
* Bhdgavata-purdna, II., 7, 3; and III., 33,1 The birth of the sage, and of his nie sisters, 1s here said to have taken place in the house of Kar- dama, the husband of Devahiti, who is called Kapila’s mother. Kapila’s father, according to this account, must be Kardama ; as there 1s no hint of any- thmg lke a miraculous conception. Kapula, as here described, 1s, neverthe- less, regarded, by some, as having afterwards become an incarnation of Vish~ nu. Kardama, if not one of Brahmé’s mind-born sons, was, at all events, a prajdpati, or “patriarch.” Vishnu-purdna, p 50, note.
In Colebrooke’s Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., p. 230, Devadfti 1s, of course, a misprint for Devahiti. Yet Lassen has adopted the former reading. In- dische Alterthumskunde, Vol. I., p. 832.
+m ष्णएगतिर्दैवायेो faufe ता न । कल्मषः क षाणां at `घाशरित सः॥ frst परमपि qd st येतयः सद् | fy: ao पिलाना Trewamyaa : il Mahdbhdrata, III, 14196—7.
It is the last line of these couplets which, with the exchange of s’dsira for yoga, is cited at p. 232 of the present work. The ‘ self-styled Vedanti,’ by which epithet Vijnana there denounces some unnamed author, for holding
D
18
other, the igneous principle m human disguise.* It must 01 acknowledged, in short, that we know nothing satisfactory con cerning Kapila; the meagre notices of him that are producibl ven nhac sg nts ah Sst ee Sa ae Dh ead Sactig that the Sénkhya Kapila was an incarnation of fire, has hitherto eluded my quest.
Prof. Wilson, alludmg to this text, of whose source he was unapprised pronounces, touching the identity which it authenticates, that “there does not appear to be any good authonty for the notion;” and adds, immediately afterwards: “Kapila is a synonyme of fire, as 1t 18 of a brown, dusky, 01 tawny, colour ; and this may have given rise to the idea of Agni and the sage bemg the same.” Sdénkhya-kérikd, p. 188 See, also, Colebrooke’s Miscell, Essays, Vol. I, p. 230. But it seems just as likely that the conception owed its ongin to the fabled combustion, by Kapila, of the sons of Sagara Mahdbhérata, 171., 8881. Also see As. Res., Vol. IIL. pp. 349, 350, and Vol VI, p 478
For Wilford’s wild speculations in which he identifies Kapila with noch, see As. Res., Vol. VI., pp. 473-4.
* T quote at length, as the followmg passage will, 17 a subsequent page, again come under consideration
अथाचानादि शएकमेवासनासमद्रनिपतिताननाथयरीोनानद्धिषः wt a पालः
तःसिद्धतज्ञाना wearer कपिल्ला द्वाटिशएतिद्धचाण्यपादि चत. स्टचनात सचमिति fe let | तत एतेः मस्तत ना रुकल्लषष्टितन्लाथाना GAT वति। इतश्ेद् सकल डःष्यतोथेमलभतं तीथा राणि चंतत्रपश्चभ्तान्धव। way ध्यायौ तु वं 7नरावतारभगव पिलप्रणोता। दूयं तु aidufaaat त 7 पि बो भूता नारा्यणावतारसदप्रिभगवत्कपिलप्रणोतेति द्राः । Sarvopakdrimi, ad unt.
S’ankara A’charya, in the S’dytraka-mimdénsd-bhdshya, I., 2,1, also de- clares for two Kapilas. Impheatly followmg the Réméyana, he considers the Kapila who destroyed the sons of Sagara, to be an mearnation of Vasudeva or Vishnu; but he demes the origination, or revival, by him, of the atheistic system. Acknowledging another Kapila, lim of the Sankhya, he makes, however, no attempt to ascertain him. The Bhégavata-purdna, 1X., 8, 13, flatly demes that this Kapila could, with his gentle nature, intentionally have slain the sons of Sagara. Yet it makes no doubt that they were destroyed by fire issumg from the body of the mcensed ascetic, mdependently of his volition
Sankara A’chérya, commenting on the word Kapila in the S’wetds'wotara- upanishad, V., 2, proposes two interpretations of it. By one of them it 1s violently made to intend, as a lame synonyme, Ihranyagarbha, Otherwise,
19
being hopelessly involved in uncertainty, and inextricably em. barrassed by fable. Yet it may be credited, with but little hesi- tation, that he was something more substantial than a myth ;* and there seems to be tolerably good ground for receiving, as an historical fact, his alleged connection with the Sankhya.
since primogeniture among created beings 1s found averred of both Kapila and Huranyagarbha, they are, to save scriptural consistency, concluded to be one and the same. On the other interpretation, the person named 100 the text 18 Kapila of the Sankhya, a partial incarnation of Vishou. For the qual- fication of him as such, some unspecified Purana 1s adduced. S’ankara adds that the other Kapila 1s celebrated im the Mundaka-upanishad. This state- ment 1s, however, made inadvertently, since no mention of him occurs there. S’ankara probably quoted, after the ordimary reckless Indian fashion, from memory. Dr. Roer has somewhat misrepresented S’ankara, m makmg him eite suicidally the Purana above referred to. It 1s vouched, and pro- fessedly so, not to corroborate the first identification of Kapila, but to eluci- date the second. Neither, in this quotation, 18 Kapila, “‘to praise him,” ५ ydentified with Hiranyagarbha.”? See Bib. Indica, Vol. XV., p 62.
It may be observed, generally, that, in conformity with Hindu usage, none but the figment of one’s special idolatry, is glorified as a plenary imcar- nation.
Kapila, wm the Mahddeva-sahasra-néma-stotra, Mahdbhdrata, XIIL., 1211, 18 an epithet of S'1va; and expresses, as mdicated by the context, ‘tawny.’
In an inscription translated by Colebrooke, there occurs the word kapuild, which, he observes, “‘ probably 1s fire, personified as a female goddess.” [ 81८ | Miscell. Essays, Vol. L., p. 300, last line; and p. 304, foot-note no. 21. It remains to be shown that the word ever means fire. In this place 1४ bears, undoubtedly, the sense of ‘a red cow;’ from cireumambulating which, great menit 1s supposed to be acquired “A red one] Kapila: When applied to a cow, this term signifies one of the colowr of lac-dye, with black tall and white hoofs.”? Colebrooke’s Two Treatises on the Hindu Law of Inheritance, p. 131, second foot-note. For Zapild m this acceptation, 866 the Mahébhdrata, XIII., 2953, 3535, 3596, 3703.4, 3744, 3764; and, on the subject of crcumambulating a cow, see the same poem, XIIL., 3436 and 3794.
* Colebrooke comes to a different conclusion. “It may be questioned,” he says, “whether Kapila be not altogether a mythological personage, to “hom the true author of the doctrine, whoever he was, thought fit to ascribe
p 2 |
20
The larger of the works presumed to be by Kapila, is com- prised in six books of sutras* or aphorisms, which, as ordinarily
hese Nath Sin nia sain Ne ae ae ihe ee Me
४? Miscell. Essays, Vol. I, p 231. But the Makdbhérata, m spite of its alloy of fiction, sufficiently attests, 1t would seem, the reality of the sage; and the Sdxkhya-sitra and Tattwa-samdsa may be pseudonymous, without vacating the existence of Kapila, or his character of omginator, oF eally promulgator, of hylotheistic doctrines.
In the Padma-purdna, latter section, Gauri-varnana subdivision of tke Kuméra-sambhava chapter, Kapila is said to have dwelt m the village of Kaldpa. Further particulars regarding this personage can, doubtless, be ob- tamed, if the Kapila-upapurdéna, which 1s named im the Kurma-purdna and elsewhere, be still extant. The Kapila-sanksté may be the same. See the Sanskmt Catalogue of the hbrary of the As. Soc of Bengal, p 72. At p. 26 of this Catalogue occurs the name of Kapila-smritt, or legal nstitutes of Kapila. A work descriptive of certain places of pious resort, and another on naval astrology, attributed to Kapila, have been found in the Peninsula. Mackenzie Collection, Vol. I, pp. 65 and 262.
* Colebrooke—Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., pp. 231, 232—unhesitatingly applies the title of Sdnkhya-pravachana to these sitras; but adds—1bid., p. 232-—that it “‘seems to be a borrowed one. at least, 7 1s common to several compositions. It appertams to Patanjali’s Yoga-s’dstra.”’ Undouht- edly 1४ 1s borrowed; and J am disposed to date its use in question only from Vijnana Bhiksha. Apart from the wntmys of this author and of lus fol- Towers, | have nowhere met with the employment of Sdnkhya-pravachana m place of Sdnkhya-sitra, save mm the postscript to Amruddha’s commentary, and m that to 1ts abridgement by Vedanti Mahadeva. But the epigraphs to Indian manuscripts are known to be, so generally, the work of copyists, that the adverse evidence of these two seeming exceptions may, very allowably, be neglected.
With regard to the meaning of the term Sdnkhya-pravachana, whieh forms part of the title of the present publication, M. Saint-Hulaire could not have done better than consult our commentator, whose explanation of it he seems, however, to be unacquaimted with. At p. 5 of his Premier Mémoire sur le Sankhya, he translates these words by ‘‘ Préface ou Introduction au Sankhya.”? Sooth to say, this would be a strange sort of name for a eomplete dogmatic enunciation, by any philosopher, of hs own theory ; especially प, as happens
~ , with the Sankhya, the theory leaves almost no room for legitimate evolution.
21
read, amount to five hundred and twenty-six.* Its fourth book is chiefly made up of proverbial sayings and brief hints of
Mistaken as Viynana probably 1s, m arguing that the Tuttwa-samdsa not only preceded the Sdénkhya-sétra, but formed its germ, there 1s no ground to mistrust his etymological analysis of the word pravachana as here used. At p. 7 of the present work, he explains it by prakarshena mrvachanam ‘detailed exposition ;’ and, at p 110, by prapancha ‘explication.’ Its im- port is, therefore, mterpretation.
Vyndina, m the Pdtanjala-bhdshya-vértika, lst adhydya, ad fin., again defines the term sdénkhya-pravachana—as the proper name, accordmg to Vyasa, of the Yoga Aphorisms—by words expressing * detailed exposition 2 साङप्रव चन दूति । साडः Wass Be वचनं साङ्द्यप्रचचनम् । Nagoji Bhatta, m his Pdtanjala-seitra-vritti-bhdshya-chchhdyd-vyékhyd, sulently tran- seribes Viynéna’s derivation: एतस्य साडः त्रवचनलं तु VS “Ta प्रकषण चचनात्।
Had M. Samt-Hailaire not permitted his dependence on Colebrooke to su- persede reference to Vynana, he would have found that, on the statement of the latte, the Sénkhya-pravachana came after the Tattwa-samdsa ; and that neither of them 1s described as standing to the other in a relation similar to that of preface. Further on I shall take up this pomt again.
* That 1s to say, in the six books, 164, 47, 84, 32, 129, and 70, respec- tively. As for this enumeration, even if it had not the support, by express declaration, of annotators, yet the tenor of their scholia would, m general, authorize 1६ with sufficient distinctness But it 1s expressly supported, by notation, 111 all the copies of the pure text that I have consulted, and m most of the MSS. of Vijndna’s commentary and of Nagoji Bhatta’s abstract of it, that I have collated. Aniruddha, and his epitomist Mahadeva, of whose works such MSS. as I have exammed likewise have the aphorisms numbered, concur, essentially, m the forementioned distribution and aggregate. The only difference which they discover, consists m halving the 121st aphorism of book V.; thus brmgmg out the sum total, 527. See p. 207 of the pre- sent publication, and p. 33 of its appendix.
M. Saint-Hhlaire, precipitately accepting, without diplomatie verification, the Serampore edition of Vijnana’s commentary, and unvisited by any the least suspicion of its faultlessness, computes the Sankhya aphorisms, m the six books, at 156, 46, 76, 30, 122, and 69; in all, 479. See Premer Mémoire sur le Sinkhya, p. 6. The consequence, to his essay, of this want of circum- spection and research, is not very advantageous. Neither need one be sur-
e
22
legends, illustrative of Sankhya topics; and its fifth is polemic, being devoted to a formal defence of the atheistic scheme. In
prised that, leanmg on the old edition of Viynana, he should write thus ६ “[svara Krishna, 1mbu des opinions de son temps, aurait pu préter 4 Kapila des pensées qui ne seraient pas les siennes.” Ibid., p. 69. The result of the otiose confidence above anmmadverted on, may 10. part be gathered from the particulars about to be noted.
In the edition received by our essayist, I , 61 is lost in the commentary; and yet the 22d kdrikd 15, 11 good part, composed of it. With the same memonal couplet, VI, 32, also, 1s connected: but this aphorism, with most of the explanation of it, 1s omitted altogether.
I., 87, which 18 degraded to commentary, fixes the number of the proofs admitted by the Sinkhya, as stated in the 4th दका,
I., 118, which 1s in the same predicament with the aphorism last named. forms part of the 9th kdrikéd.
J., 141, similarly ewrcumstanced, may be found embodied m the 17th 11147
I., 162, which is given as commentary, upholds the 62d kériha
M. Saimt-Hilaire would have quoted [1.. 28, after the 28th kdmkd, had it not been omitted—with nearly all its commentary.
He would, also, at p. 444, have cited IIl., 18 and 19, 1f they had not been printed as shreds of 5८110118.
The 50th £arzkd receives support from IIL, 43, which 1s, hkewise, dis- guised by small type.
Commenting on the 54th kdrikd, M. Saint-Hhlaire employs language which significantly implies the entire and unquestioning reliance on the old edition of Vijnana, which has above been alleged of him. Hs wordsare as follows:
“Lecture 3, sottra 44 [48]: ‘En haut, il y a prédommance de la 1001116.
“ Kapila ne va pas plus 100; et aprés avoir indiqué, comme on 19 vu, existence des trois mondes en n’ indiquant que le monde des dieux ०४ réene la 00176, 7 ne dit pomt quelle qualité prédomine dans les mondes qui vien- nent aprés celui-la. 1] est probable que la एतै, en faisant prédommer Pobscurité dans le monde mférieur, et le mal dans le monde du milieu, se conforme & une tradition dés longtemps recue; mais, dans les axiomes du maitre, ce complément 4 peu prés mdispensable de sa pensée n’ apparalt pas? et il n’en a rien exprimé, pas méme par une de ces réticences qui lui sont s1 habituelles. Il faut ajouter que le commentateur des Sottras, Vidjndna
x
Bhikshou, ne s’est pas arrété d’avantage 4 la doctrme que nous retrouvons
28
aaa
~~ addition to its special section of controversy, it, also, here and there, prefers in direct terms, or else darkly points to, exceptions
dans la 8118, et qu’a la suite de Kapila 11 a omus de parler des deux autres mondes, placés au-dessous du monde supérieur. Il se borne & dire que par ‘en haut’ Kapila comprend le monde qui est au-dessus de la terre habitée par les mortels.”” Premier Mémoire, &c., pp. 213, 214.
The restoration of III , 49 and 50, which, with the explanation of them, do not appear in the Serampore impression of Vynana, at once accounts for several items of the 54th kdrikd, and completely frustrates the criticism, just quoted, which our essayist ventures.
III., 53, which 1s reduced to commentary, is repeated, mostly, in the 55th 1111110
To illustrate the 68th kdrikd, M. Saint-Hilaire cites, stead of III., 56, which 18 omitted, the explanatory expansion of 14,
“ Colebrooke a fait remarquer (Essays, tom. I., page 232) que les Sodtras attribués 4 Kapila mentionnaient le nom de Pantchasikha. Le fait est exact, et Colebrooke en tirait cette double conséquence: d’abord, que les Soutras n’étaient pas de Kapila lu-méme, car 1] n’aurait pas erté le nom de son dis- ciple, et, en second lieu, qu’ il y avait pour le Sankhya des autorités anté- nieures aux Sotitras, puisqu’ils mvoquaient eux-mémes le témoignage d’un maitre plus ancien qu’ eux. J’ admets les deux conséquences signalées par Colebrooke. Mais 11 amait dai ajouter que la citation rapportée par lu se trouve dans l’avant-dernier sofitra de tout le systéme. (Lecture 6, sotitra 68). A’ cette place, les mterpolations ont été plus faciles certamement que dans le corps méme de J’exposition, et il est fort possible qu’une mam étrangére ait glissé celle-ci 4 Ja fin de l’ouvrage. Cette simple indication du nom de Pantchasikha ne nous apprend d’alleurs absolument rien sur la vie de ce personnage, elle ne fait que consacrer le souvemr d’une de ses doc- trmes.” Premer Mémoire, &c, pp 253, 254.
Now, mm the first place, the suggestion bioached by M. Samt-Hulaire, that VL, 68, as bemg the penultimate aphorism of the Sdnkhya-siira, may, not improbably, be an interpolation, 1s weakened by the fact that it 1s followed by two aphorisms mstead of one, and his objection now hes, by his line of argument, more directly against the text commemorating Sanandana,—VI., 69 ,—which, m his reading of Viynana, 1s consigned to the notes. Again, both he and Colebrooke failed to observe V., 32, which, hkewise, m Vijnana, as received by the former, 18 sumply a scantling of commentary. The rest of M, Samt-Hilaire’s reasoning, the bulk of which 1s, with such a lofty au
२4
objected by a fictitious postulant, or protagonist ; appending, in antidote, the appointed solution of the difficulty suggested. In this procedure it is nowise singular among compositions of its order, Neither is it the only sample, in Indian hterature, of au aphoristic treatise that possesses but slight pretensions to method. It abounds, moreover, in repetition. As compared with the aphorisms of the other philosophical schools, to those of the Sankhya may, however, with all their elliptical obscurity, be conceded no inconsiderable credit for the degree in which they define their own tenor. Jn this respect they present, indeed, an observable contrast to the sdtras of the Vedaéuta, to go no further; and the rationale of this contrast appears to be of no arduous discovery. As the creed purporting to repre- sent the Vedas constituted the established faith, a compendium of its dogmas could securely count on a dispensation from that punctual scrutiny which would inevitably attend the symbol of aschism.* ‘To the first would be wanting certain inducements
rs Arete
of patronage, avowedly adopted from Colebrooke, has been dealt with al- ready. See above, pp. 10, 11.
Once more, our essayist would, m expounding the 57th kdriké, have cated VIL, 40, had it not, m the old edition of Vinina, been accounted exposi- torial; a part of the mtroduction to it being, there, put in its place.
* Nilakantha Chaturdhara, in his Shat-tantri-séra, enumerates, as dstika or orthodox systems of philosophy, the Mimdusé, Tarka, and Veddnta; and, 28 ndstika or heterodox, the Charvdka, Saugata, and Arhata The Tarka, of the first class, he subdivides mto the Sdxkhya, Pdétunjala, Vais'eshika, and Nydya; and the Saugata, of the second class, into the Sautrdntika, Vaibha- shika, Yogdchara, and Mddhyamika.
Proceeding to particulars, this writer gives some account of a singular theory, additional to those above named, by one Mis’ra. As never having been alluded to by any European writer, 1t may be thought not undeseryi nye of a summary note.
The most remarkable characteristic of this theory consists in the exotie imnovation of domg away with the ultimate resolution to the primal cause, of matter and all subaltern forms of intellizence. The diverge allotinent., to different mortals, of mundane fruition, in the ease of origuial appearances
25
to precision, which could scarcely fail to weigh gravely with the other; and, if acceptable in the gross, it might easily be entrusted to the casual care of expositors, for the redress of its laxities. As for the second, on the other hand, as anticipating every species of opposition, its compiler would industriously labour to diminish the chances of conflict, by, first of all, studying to avoid ambiguity ; and, further, the proselyte to a new belief would naturally be solicitous for a precise enunciation of the tenets he had received in return for those he had discarded. Accordingly, though the aphorisms of the Vedénta may have been posterior to those of the Sdnkhya, there seems good reason _ why the first should not have striven so strenuously as the other, against the hazard of misconstruction. That the latter is by no mcans so capable of various interpretation as the former, is incontestable. That it would prove to be so, might, perhaps, even be argued from the consideration that the Sankhya has never, within historical knowledge, lapsed from unity; whereas
on the stage of life, 18 referred, by 1t, to the influence of the face of the horoscope at conception and birth. The preemmently devout are, at death, translated to a place of bliss, and are thenceforth exempt from earthly vicis- situdes. Ignorant evil-doers are consigned, by divine messengers, to a region which 1s vaguely said to beinferior to paradise ; and thew resurrection in this world, or other subsequent change of state, appears to be unprovided for. Conscious transgressors are tormented in the flames of Tartarus, till the beginning of a new cycle; and are then reendued with their former bodies. With these persons, the deeds of the past life have, declaredly, a retributive efficacy. Such as presumptuously pretend to oneness with the Deity,—by whom the Vedantis are plamly signified,—suffer, 19 their subtile frames, the dolors of perdition, till the end of the eurrent day of Brahma; and are then ejected from thei gross corporeal investinents. Thus last expression 18 unintelligible; and the text 1s, here, very likely, adulterated.
Mis’ra, on the representation of 118 eritic, lays clam to one or more Upanishads, a Purina, and the Udas‘ardéva-brdéhmana, as lending colour to his sentiments. Two branches from his proper school are hmted at; their deviation from the heresiarch bemg mtimated to binge on the nature of the godhead. Nilakantha truculently retaliates the severity of Mas’ra to-
Ez
26
the Vedénta has notoriously ra ified into several distinct and irreconcilable denominations.* As already remarked, besides the book of aphorisms just dis-
nee wards Vedantis, by denymg to him and to Ins followers, every prospect of reaching the sphere of Brahma. He refuses them fellowship with the परापत communion ; and reviles them, under the epithet of ^ brutes of the Lord,’ for impiously mamtainiug that celestial blessedness 18 attended with a sense of selfhood.
The bare title of Mis‘ra 1s usually appropriated, I learn, to Vachaspati Mis’ra the junst. Here, however, 1t may, possibly, designate the elder writer of the same name, the pneumatologist. As conducmg to sustain this conjecture, I may mention a rumour, prevalent among the learned Ilindus of Central India, that this wnter, late in life, put forth a disquisition, belicved to have perished, on incognisable matters generally; in which, no doubt scandalizing the conservatism of his age, he evinced a marked disposition to think, withrn limits, for himself. Atall events, the origination, on Indian soil, of a system that strikes at the very root of pantheism, 18 a phenomenon well worthy of remark. It may, indeed, almost be taken to imply an acquaint- ance with some religion of the West; though, m teaching that creation, sentient and mert, proceeds from the Deity as a sced, it 18 evident that Mis’ra had not msen to the Christian and Muhammadan dogma of genesis without a material cause. Els mmphed restriction to the human SPCCles, of a future life, 1s, also, a strikmg reduction of the range accorded, by most oriental nations, to the economy of metempsychosis.
Of Nilakantha’s Shat-tantri-sdra I have been able to procure only the fourth and last chapter, and but a single copy of tlns fragment. The trea- tise is in verse, with a prose paraphrase and a commentary; the whole by the same author. It 1s said to have been written within the last century and a half.
* Notwithstanding their fundamental disparity, a general simihtude per- yades the Sankhya and the Yoga. In some of the earlest authontics they are, also, repeatedly mentioned in combination. Ther mterdependence, likewise, is incontrovertible. That the Yoga implies the esistence of the Sdinkhya, does not require to be proved; and a reference to the Sdnkhya- sétra equally discovers that 1t contemplates not a few of the fanatical notions and practices detailed in the aphorisms of the Yoga. It may, therefore, not unreasonably be concluded that the Sankhya and the Yoga, whatever their era, or the age of ther supposed ealiest text-books, were of nearly con- temporaneous origin.
2
27
missed, a scanty index* to the topics of the Sankhya, entitled. Tatiwa-samdsa, is referred to Kapila. The articles that make
* The distribution of the Sankhya system mto twenty-five cardinal prin- ciples,—namely, eight producers, sixteen productions, and spirit,—is as old as the Mahdbhdérata. See foot-notes to pp. 2 and 6, supra. The crazy digest of these principles, laid down in the Bhdgavata-purdna, III., 26, 10 seqq., argues forcibly the recent origin of this crude farrago.
The topics of the Sankhya, as diversely exhibited m the several editions of the Tattwa-samdsa, will receive full attention presently. But another classification of these topics, which computes them at sixty, 1s propounded in the commentaries on the Zattwa-samdsa, and in the Rdja-vértika as quoted in the Sdukhya-kaumudi and Sarvopakdrint. The passage from the Ruja-vdértiza runs as follows :
प्रघानारि लसेक मथेवच्चमथान्यता | पार्ये च तथाने ` fra air wa wt रेषटत्तिरकदैलं Shear ता द। विपथेयः पश्चविघस्तया 7 नव तुषटयः॥ करणानामसासय्येम विंश्तिधा सतम् | दूति षरि: पद्ाथानामष्टाभिः we सिद्धिभिः।।
Fifty of these topics, the ‘ intellectual creation,’ offer no difficulty, at least in the immediate subdivisions of this aggregate. These are: the five spe- cies of obstruction, the nine of acquiescence, the twenty-eight of disability in the organs, and the eight of perfection. The remaining ten are: (1) the existence, (2) the simplicity, (3) the objectiveness, and (4) the subservience, of nature; (5) the distmctness, (6) the multeity, and (7) the passiveness, of spirit; (8) the disjunction of nature from spint, (9) the conjunction of nature with spirit; and (10) the continuance of the body after the acqu- sition of saving knowledge.
Prof. Wilson—Sdnkhya-kdériké, pp. 191-2—completes, in some sort, this set of ten ‘radical facts;’? but only by copymg Vachaspati where he sup- plements the text, and by musunderstandmg him both there and elsewhere. Vachaspati connects ‘ existence’ with both ° spirit? and ‘ nature ;’ and yet in order to make but one category of the whole, namely, ‘ the existence of spirit and nature.’ Prof. Wilson makes two: “‘ existence of soul’ and “ existence of nature.” Again, Vichaspati explams s’esha-vritte, by sthiiz, which he refers to sthula and sukshma. Prof. Wilson, dividing, as before, gives two categories, “‘ duration of subtile” and ^^ that of gross.” Véyoga and yoga are left, by Vachaspati, uncaplaimed, as bemg too obvious to demand elucidation. Prof. Wilson throws them out altogether.
E 2 ४
28
up this jejune catalogue, are misnamed sdtras ;* and their number, as fixed by different commentators, ranges from 1 two to twenty-five. On the strength of internal evidence, thicir posteriority to the larger aphoristic treatise is scarccly matter
0 118, म । [हि त । 0 कमो
the T isa cite t $ let for a The commentaries on the Tattwa-samdsa cite the enswug couy 1
enumeration of the ten radical facts : ध : अस्तिलमेक लमयायेवन्लं पार्ये मन्यलसकटेता च| योगे वियेगे ges: पुमांसः स्थितिः शरोर च VET
The term astitwa ‘existence,’ here used, is explamed by the other commentators as it is by Vachaspati. Vis’esha-vrittih is, im some कि, substituted for cha s’esha-vritith. [ts port is represented as above. Nee, regarding it, the sixty-seventh Ldmké of I's’wara Krishna.
In an anonymous marginal note to one of my MSS. of the Sdnkhya- kériké, Ihave found the verses given above from the Rdju-vértiha, with the following stanza in place of their first couplet and a half:
पुरषः प्र तिवु्धिरदङ्गमरो गृणा यः। त fais we नैलिकाथीः wat द्भ ॥
Here the fundamental categories are: (1) शभा, (2) nature, (3) intelli. gence, (4) egotism, (5-7) the three qualities, (8) the subtile elements, (9) the organs, (10) the gross elements, See, also, the Séukhyu-kiridu, p. 192,
= The Sarvopakdrimé commentary counts but twenty-two ; as follows; BIT aa I Rl षोाडष्ट विकाराः॥९॥ पुरमः॥₹२॥ चैगुग्धसश्चरः॥ ४॥ प्रति रः ॥४॥ अध्यात्मम् ey अधिभूत _॥७॥ अधिदैवम् ॥८॥ reife «दयः ॥ ९ ॥ पञ्च कमेयेनयः ॥ ६०॥ पच्च वायवः ॥ ६९ ॥ पच्च कमीत्मानः॥ ६९ I पच्पन्पव्द्धा WAR छाविंश्तिषाणदिः॥ १४ ॥ नवधा तष्िः॥ ९५ mae. ee — 1 | ९७॥ Saree: ॥ ९८॥ wadufat RUSE ॥ १९ ॥ TET बन्धः ।। ० ॥ चिवि are: || १ शन् ॥ १ ॥ स्तद् चाथातथ्यम् | एतत् सम्यम् Tet त त्यः स्यान् न qata- विधन "दुः नाभिभयते | :
The rene traigunya-sanchara 15 given as two, in all the other eommen- fanes. It is only by this bisection that the Sénkhya-sitra-vivarana 11 aon the Sarropakdriné ; and thus exhibits twenty-three so-called sitras. all exposition of the words ae em oes to twenty-four, oy foregone 1 ee ee al which occur after the bopie प has which Dr Ballantyne printed
; peculiar in reading trividho dhilu-sune
29
of uncertainty ;* and they add nothing to our knowledge of Kapila’s system, except in having elicited annotations which lay
sargah. In the preface to the Sdnkhya-tattwa-vildsa, where the Tattwa- 50070450 1s quoted, as if from the Sdukhya-krama-digikd, and bnefly ex- plamed, the expression truzdho dhdtu-sargak 1s explamed by the words vita-pitta-kapha-bhedét trividhah, as intendmg the assemblage of wind, choler, and phlegm. Colebrooke, by the way, translatme from Jagannatha Tarkapanchanana, mistakes in construing the term dhdtu-varshamya by “pernicious power of mineral drugs.’’ Digest of Hmdu Law, &c., Vol. 111. p. 804: 8४०. ed. Cf. Colebrooke’s Two Treatises on the Hindu Law of Inhentanee, p. 361, para. 2. The exact equivalent is, m our antique medical nomenclature, ‘distemper of the humours.’ The Hindu physio- logy reckons the humours at three only.
The Sdnkhya-krama-dipikd gives, after no, 22 as above, the words trivi- dhum duhkham, as a topic.
The reading of the ZLattwa-ydthdérthya-dipana corresponds to that of the Sdukhya-krama-dipikd, barring its rejection of trevdho, &c., and 1४5 con- sidering the words elad yéthdtathyam os a topic, thus actually giving tweuty-five as the total.
Kshemauanda, in his annotations on the Tatlwa-samdsa, states that it con- talus twenty-five topics: but he enumerates only twenty-four, his text bemg, as far as the words etad ydihdiadhyam, identical with that of the Tattwa-ydthdrthya-dipana.
The Tultwa-samisa is generally found appended to Vedanti Mahadeva’s Sdnkhya-vrité-séra, and aecoiding to the reading of the Sar vopahdrini. Mahadeva, however, perhaps for the sake of shortness, omits the two sentences by which the topies are usually followed.
The eighth topie 1s read, in the Sdukhya-silra-vivarana, adhidawam cha + and adhidawatam cha, 111 the Sdukhya-krama-dipikd, 111 the Latiwa-ydthdr- thyu-dipana, and im Kshemananda on the Tatlwa-samdsa, The Sarvopaké- rint, 1 its seventeenth topic, 1s unique im preferrmg das‘a to das’adha.
Of the Sdnkhya-krama-dipihd I have collated five MSS.
* The anonymous author of the Sarvopakérimt relates, as an ancient tradition, that Kapila the mecarnation of Vishnu composed the Tutiwa- samdsa, and that, in aftertimes, another Kapila, a manifestation of the divi- nity of fire, put forth the larger Sankhya Aphorisms, of which the ^ Com- pendium of Principles’ 1s the rudiment. The same tradition makes the doctrines of other, unnamed, philosophical schools, besides the Sankhya, no less than the ‘Collection of Six Books,’ io have sprung from the Zaliwa«
30
under contribution sources presumed to be, in their integrity, no longer forthcoming.
samésa. These observations will be found, in the Sanskrit, nm a foot-note
to p. 18, supra. Vijndna Bhikshu says: ‘ If it be alleged that the Tattwa-samdsa aphor-
isms are simply recited in the Collection of Six Books, the answer is, that itis not so. There 18 no mere repetition among them; masmuch as they are, respectively, concise and expanded. Hence, the appellation of Sénkhya- pravachana 18 appropriate for the Collection of Six Books, 111 hke manner as it 1s for the Institute of the Yoga. The former embraces precisely a detailed exposition of the Tattwa-samdsa, the shorter Sdnkhya Institute. There is this difference, however, that the Collection of Six Books only expands the subject-matter of the Tattwa-samdsa ; whereas the Institute of the Yoga avoids their seeming deficiency, by eapressly propounding God, whom both the other works, by concession for sake of argument, deny.’ For the original of this extract, see page 7 of the present work.
Our commentator, at p. 110, grows more confident; passmg from the language of assumption, as it were, to that of positive assertion: ‹ This Institute, equally with that of the Yoga, as being a developement of the substance of the shorter Sankhya Aphorisms, 1s designated Sdnkhya-prava~ chana, or, Explecation of the Sdnkhya’
Colebrooke, having m view a portion, 1f not all, of these remarks, writes as follows: “It appears, from the preface of the Kapila-bhdshya, that ४ more compendious tract, m the same form of sitras or aphorisms, bears the title of Tattwa-samdsa, and 1s ascribed to the same author, Kapila. The scholiast intimates that both are of equal authority, and in no 1८51८८४ discordant. one bemg a summary of the greater work, or else this an amplification of the coneiser one. The latter was probably the case; for there is much repetition in the Sdekhya-pravachana,
“If the authority of the schohast of Kapila may be trusted, the Tadéwe- samasa is the proper text of the Sénkhya ; and its doctrine 15 more fully, but separately, set forth by the two ampler treatises entitled Sdnkhya-pra- vachana, which contain a fuller exposition of what had been there succinctly delivered.” Mascell. Essays, Vol. L., pp. 231, 232.
Dr. Roer,—Journal of the As. Soc. of Bengal for 1851, p. 402, note, — ae ies the latter of the paragraphs given above, unaccountably adds :
ut this is 2 misapprehension: the scholiast docs only say: ‘ they are of - equal authority, one bemg a summary of the greater work, or else this ११४५
3]
The commentaries on the Sdnkhya-sitra are as follows :
I. The Aniruddha "१८४, by Aniruddha.* Of this author’s history I know nothing.
IT. The Sdakhya-vritti-sdra, by Mahadeva Saraswati,+ more
त्र
amplification of the conciser one”? On the contrary, as will have been sven, the scholiast allows no such alternative, and 1s responsible for only the sccond member of it. Colebrooke would seem to have misunderstood the word udhayok ; and he has, besides, made out Vijnana to be self-contradic- tory. At the same tame, the clause to which Dr. Roer excepts, literal translation of Viynina’s own words.
M Sant-Hilare says, speaking of the Sankhya Aphorisms: “ Ce traité, quoique assez court, a été abrégé, dit-on, par Kapila, sous le titre de Tattva- Samisa, ¢c’est-i-dire, réduction substantielle du Sankhya, Nous ne con- naissons ce dernicr ouvrage que par Jes citations qu’en ont faites les com- mentateurs, et qu’a répétées Colebrooke d’aprés eux (Essays, tome L., p. 231).” Premier Mémovre sur le SAnkhya, 1. 5,
Ilere, again, Colebrooke 1s imphieitly followed as translator of Vijnina s at what cost, will already have appeared. Moreover, the phrase “ reduction. substantielle” scarcely answers to Tattwa-samésa; and Colebiooke would be explored m vam for a smgle quotation from the smaller treatise.
Vynina plamly rests the vahdity of adjudging the title of Sdnkhya-pra- vackana to the Sdnkhya-sitra, on the ground that these aphorisms are an expansion of the Tattwa-samdsa; the Tattwa-samdsa bemg, again, the embryo of another collection of aphorisms called Sdakhya-pravachana,— those of the Yoga. But this derivation of the Yoga-sitra falls, in the first place, to be established; and, even if established, Vijnana would stil require a fact or two more to help him faily to his conclusion. It may be suspected that his sole foundation of fact, in the passage given at the outset of this note, 18 the common application of the term Sdnkhya to the system called from Kapila and to that of the Yoga.
* Wor evidence that Aniruddha was antecedent to Vijndna Bhikshu, see the Appendix to this volume, pp. 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12. | ee
+ Mahadeva is hkewise author of a Vedanta treatise, the cng sandhdua. See my Catalogue of Sanskrit Books, &c, Vol. I, p. 97. He has also written a commentary on the Amara-kos’a, entitled Budha-mano-~ hara. Of this work I have one copy of the first two books, aud another of the second only. The latest authonty, of ascertamed date, quoted in fragment, is Raya Mukuta, who was employed on his commentary 19 the
18 almost a
38
VI. The Raja-vdrtika, said to have been composed by, or for, Ranaranga Malla, sovereign of Dhaéra.*
Such commentaries on the Tattwa-samdsa as have been pro- cured, will now be named.
I. The Sarvopakdrini, by a nameless writer.
If, The Sdnkhya-sitra-vivarana, also by an anonymous author.
III. The Sdnkhya-krama-dipikd, Sdnkhydlankdra, or Sén- khya-sttre-prakshepika ;+ likewise of unknown paternity.
lectively, S’ri-kas'¢-rdja-sdgara. I have seen at least twelve or fifteen works by its author, who composed largely in Hindi and Marahatti, no less than in Sanskrit.
* For this appropnation Iam mdebted to the learned Pandit Kas‘inatha S‘astri Ashtaputra, of the Benares College. The Pandit is by far too well acquainted with Bhoja Raja’s commentary on the Yoga-siitra, to have mis- taken 1t for the Raya-vdritka The latter treatise, he assures me, was in his possession several years, duimg which he constantly lectured on it to his pupils.
The only surviving extract from this work, generally known, is found in the couplets quoted, by Vachaspati Mis’ra, near the end of the Sdnkhya-
kaumudé; andin the Sarvopakérm?. They have been cited in the note at
p. 27, supra }
t+ This work was published and translated by Dr. J. R. Ballantyne, in 1850; pp. 65, 8vo. Its titles were, at that time, unascertamed.
Dr Reer—Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for 1851, p. 405-- states that the author of the Sdahbhya-tatiwa-vildsa imputes this work to A'suri; but he contests the credibility of this attmbution, on the showing of the commentary itself. It does not positively appear, however, that the author of the Sdnkhya-tattwa-vildsa is speaking of the Sdnkhya-krama- dipike.
For Panchas’ikha as schohast of the Zatiwa-samdsa, see p. 12, supra, foot-note.
To revert once more to A’suri: since the first sheet of this preface was printed, acommentary on the Shad-dars’una-samuchchaya has been procured, in which occurs the only passage attmbuted to this sage, that has yet offered
itself to view. It 18 as follows: F
34
IV. The Tattwa-ydthdrthya-dipana, by 3118४ Ganes’a Dik- shita,* son of Bhava Vis’wanatha Dikshita, and pupil of Vijnéna Bhikshu.
छ. An unnamed volume of annotations, by Ksheménanda,t son of Raghunandana Dikshita.
The Sdnkhya-karikd, by Ys'wara Krishna,t ranks, in Hindu estimation, and deservedly, foremost among the Sénkhya com-
नि
1
विविक्टक्परि एतेः sar भेगेऽस्य कथ्यते। प्रतिनिम्बोाद्यः च्छे यथा aA as |
The Shad-dars’ana-samuchchaya, I now find, has, for its author, Hari- bhadra Siri The commentary on it, to which reference 1s here made, the Shad-dars’ana-vritti, 1s by Charitra Smha Gam, disciple of Mati-bhadra Gani, disciple of Bhava-dharma Gani, a scholastic successor of Jina-bhadra Sari, disciple of Jma-r4ja Sin.
Hari-bhadra Suri gives an account of the ongm of the word Sdnkhya, which, as being altogether novel, deserves to be produced. While acknow- ledging the connection of Kapila with the Sinkhya, he alleges that the followers of this doctrine receive their appellation from the first doctor of their school, Sankha or S’ankha. His words are: Tewefifa कापिल्ल- द् नम्। दिपुदषनिभमित्तेयं सा! And, elsewhere: साङ्ष्टय दति पुर- षनिरि We UAT SR दमे साडः 7 तार्या वा श रः शक्नामाऽ- दिपुरुषः।
* He has also commented on the Yoga-sitra, inthe Yogdnus'dsana-sitra- vritt, Another of his works 1s the Prabodha-chandrodaya-chich-chandriké, or scholia on the Prabodha-chandrodaya drama.
† Author, also, of the Nava-yoga-kallola, or Nydya-raindkara ; a concise treatise explanatory of the Yoga Aphorisms. He describes himself as belong- ing to a Kényakubja family of IshtkApura,—our barbarized Etawah, I am told. The only copy I have mspected of Kshemananda’s notes on the Tattwa-samdsa, is wperfect in its latter half.
£ The history of I's’wara Knshna is utterly unknown. Swapnes/wara, in the Kaumudi-prabhdé, makes him one with Kalidasa: द्र Waal कालि. दासेन छताः कारि 1; | These words are continuous with the extract given in a foot-note to p. 10, supra. The only two MSS. of the Kaumudi-prabhd that I have seen, are defective at the conclusion, where Swapnes’wara may, perhaps, have enlarged on the traditional identity which he reports,
80
II. The Sdnkhya-tattwa-kaumudi, or Sdrkhyu-haumudi ; by Vachaspati: Mis’ra,* pupil of Martanda-tilaka Swami.
Gaudapida’s Bhdshya on the Sénkhya-kémké, includmg the Memorial Verses, was published, by Professor Wilson, at Oxford, m 1837. Prefixed to the origmals is the Professor’s translation of the commentary, accom- panying Colebrooke’s version of the text.
* There seem to have been two learned Hindus of the name of Vachaspati Mis’ra. Of the lawyer so called, Colebrooke says: ‘ No more ase sa or twelve generations haye passed smce he flourished at Semaul in ae Digest of Hmdu Law, &c, Preface, p. xix.: 8vo. ed. of 1801. T a nah writer, after speaking of Vachaspat: Mis‘ra, the author of the Bhdmatt- nibandha, goes on to remark: “This isthe same Vachaspati whose com- mentaries on the Sdnkhya-kériké of I's‘wara Chandra [Krishna], and on the text and gloss of Patanjal’s Yoga and Gotama’s Nydéya, were noticed m former essays. Heis the author of other treatises on dialectics (Nydya), and of one entitled Tattwa-bindu, on the Piérva-mimdnsé as it is expounded by Bhatta. All his works, m every department, are held in high and deserved estimation.” Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., pp. 332-3. It hence appears as if Colebrooke recognised this Vachaspati as distinct from some other,—from the junst, im all probabilty. This distinction seems, 111 truth, to be mdis- putable; and yet I am unable to pronounce on the precise date that should be assigned to VWadchaspati the lawyer; and matenals fail me to verify the decision as to his age, cited above from Colebrooke. In the Dwaita-nirnaya, he mentions that he wrote that work at the mstance of Jaya, consort of Bhairava Raja, and mother of Purushottama; but he enters ito no further particulars. In another of lus tracts, however, the Vowdda-chintémani, he alleges that, with a view to composing it, he had consulted, with other works, the Ratndkara. Now, the Ratndkara is known to have been prepared under the supermtendence of Chandes’wara, minister of Harasinha Deva, son of Bhaves’a, princes of Mithilé 3 and it
specifies, as the time of its publication, the S’aha year 1236, or A. D. 1414. Beyond this point, Vachaspati the lawyer cannot, then, be carried 1110 antiquity.
The elder Vachaspati Mis’ra_ is several times quoted in the Serva-dars’ana- sungraha of Madhava A'charya; and his gloss on Vy4sa’s Yoga-bhdshya, as likewise his Tattwa-kaumudi, is there mentioned 10 conjunction with his name, According to Colebrooke,—Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., p. 801,—
87
This † ‘ प $ This treatise has, in turn, furnished occasion for several expo- sitions. Such are:
“ Madhava flourished towards the middle of the fourteenth century.” The “no more than ten or twelve generations which Colebrooke reckons back from 1796 to Vachaspati the junst, would be exhausted, even if Indian life averaged so many as three descents and a half to a century, long before we reached the time of Madhava A’chérya. Moreover, I have seen a copy of part of the Bhémati-mbandha, which was transcribed in the Samvat year 1428, or A. D. 1372,—a date irreconcilable with Colebrooke’s com~ putation.
Vachaspati, in the brief enumeration, at the close of the Bhématt-niban- dha, of his own compositions, eight in number, does not name, among them, a single one on jurisprudeace. This list, as expanded im the Veddnta-kalpa- taru, embraces the followmg works: one on the Nydya, the Nyd@ya-varteka- tdtparya-tikd; one on the Saénkhya, the Tattwa-kaumudi; one on the Yoga, the Tattwa-s’éradi; one on the Mimansa, the Nydya-kamkd, a gloss on the Vidhi-viveka ; one on Bhatta’s exposition of the Mimansa, the Tatiwa-bindu; two on the Vedanta, the Tattwa-saimtksha, which 1s commentary on the Brahma-siddhi, and the Bhdmatt.
Vachaspati does not profess to confine himself, in this catalogue, to his writings of a certain class. Neither have we any hint that he was an author by proxy. These works must, of themselves, have cost good part of a life of study; and it is scarcely probable that, had the philosopher also become famous as a legal authority, his twofold character would not be celebrated, to this day, among the learned of India.
Several of these works are no longer known to exist. There is some uncertainty whether Zattwa-s’dradé be another name for the Pdtanjala- stitra-bhéshya-vyékhyé , but 1t seems, from the Veddnta-kalpataru, to be so. Colebrooke is, perhaps, incautious im saying that Vachaspati “1s the author of other treatises on dialectics,” besides the Nydya-vdri:ka-tatparya-tikd,
VAchaspati, in the Bhdmati-ntbandha, speaks of himself as [ट in the reign of one Nriga Rajé. Common fame makes him to have been a native of Tirh&t ; and his family name, Mis’ra, marks him as a native of Gangetic Hindusthan.
Colebrooke—Miscell. Essays, Vol. I, p. 233—seems to be of opinion that the title Zattwa-kaumudéis apphed to Vachaspati’s Sankhya work only by comparatively recent abbreviation. But the concluding distich of the book =
*e
38
a. The Tattwa-kaumudi-vydkhyd, by Bharati Yati, pupil of Bodharanya Yati.
8. The Tattwdrnava, or Tatitwdmrita-prakds/int; by Ra- ghavananda Saraswati,* disciple of Adwayénanda or Adhwaryu Bhagavat-pdda, disciple of Vis'wes’wara.
८. The Kaumudi.prabhéd, by Swapnes’wara, son of Va- hinis’a.T
d. The Tattwa-chandra, by Nardéiyana Tirtha Yati,{ pupil of Vasudeva Tirtha, and disciple of Réma-govinda Tirtha.
€. The Sdnkhya-tattwa-vilisa, Sdnkhya-vritti-prakds' a, oy Sinkhydrtha-sankhydyika ; by Raghunaétha Tarkavdgis’a Bhiat- ticharya, son of S'iva-rama Chakravarti, son of Chandravandya,
itself, 1f not spurious, contaims the shorter form. It also occurs in the Lat of Vachaspati’s works, as lately detailed; and in Madhava Avcharya’s Sarva-dars’ana-sangraha.
The Sdénkhya-kaumudé was published in Calcutta, in the Samvat year 1905, or A. D. 1848: pp. 49, small 8९०.
* Toa writer or writers of this or sumlar name, Ilindu literature is beholden for a number of volumes on the Vedanta and Miminsd. See my Catalogue, &c., Vol. L., pp. 70, 92, 1389, and Appendix.
Raghavananda quotes Aniruddla, and was, consequently, posterior to hin
+ Vahinis’a had a brother surnamed Vidyimivasa; and this is the title of the father of Rudra Bhattacharya, the logician. A person ealled Swapnes’- wara has contributed a series of annotations on the Aphorisms of S/indilya, entitled S’dudilya-s’ata-sitri-bhashya.
* Of this work I have seen only a fragment of the beginmng, going over Vachaspati’s notes on the first eight karikds.
For several other works by Narayana Tirtha Yati, see my Catalogue, &e., Vol. 1, pp. 88, 107, and Appendix. Colebrooke says, “Ile was author likewise of a gloss on the Yoga-s'éstra, as appears from his own reference x
to 1४. Miscell. Essays, Vol. L, p 233. his statement has been sub- stantially verified. There occurs, m his Sdnkhya-chandriki, ५ passage in which he speaks of his commentary on the Yoga-sitra,
At p.67 of this volume there are three couplets, introduced as if orignal, Two of them are cited by NarAyana Tirtha Yati, who, therefore, perhaps
^ came after Viynana Bhikshu.
39
son of Kas’inatha, son of Balabhadra, son of Sarvavanda Mis’ra. This is little more than a jejune epitome of the Sdnkhya-kau- mudt, with a preface briefly explaining the Tuattwa-samdsa, which it repeats.
~ The Sdnkhya-tatiwa-vibhékara*
111. The Sénkhya-chandriké, by Néréyana Tirtha Yati, author of the Tattwa-chandra, which has been spoken of above.
IV. The Sdnkhya-kaumudi,t by Réma-krishna Bhattacharya, who is said to borrow freely from the author of the work last named.
The Sdnkhya-séra-viveka, or Sdnkhya-sdéra,t by Vijnina Bhik- shu, consists of an expansion of the Sdnkhya-kdrikd, and an abridgement of the writer’s own Sdénkhya-pravachana-bhashya.
* This work I know only from the lst Vol, by Dr. Weber, of Die Hand- schriften-Verzeichnisse der Konighchen Bibhothek. Berlm: 1853, p. 638. Dr. Weber is in doubt whether its author’s name be, or be not, Vans‘idhara.
+ Colebrooke’s Miscell. Essays, Vol. I, p 234. This work I have not seen. Lassen—Gymnosophista; Pref., p. 1x.—makes it possible that 1t bears the second title of Sdnkhya-sdra. Prof. Wilson leaves this point प~ discussed. Sdnkhya-kdrika, Preface, p. vil.
Colebrooke calls Rama-kmshna “a learned, and not ancient, writer of Bengal.” He may be identifiable with Rama-krishna Bhattacharya Cha- Lravarti, pupil of Raghundtha Bhattacharya S’romam. See my Catalogue, &c., Vol. I, p. 51.
{ In prose and verse; three chapters of the former, and six of the latter. The metrical portion consists of kdrikds ; and contams about 270 couplets, principally in the anushtubh measure. Colebrooke calls this work a ^ trea- tise on the attamment of beatitude im this life.” 1150611. Essays, Vol. L., p- 231. Its scope 1s, however, rather wider; comprehending salvation im general, as the meed of Sankhya perfection.
The Rev. Wilham Ward adventured an English translation of this treatise, in his work on the Hindus; Vol. II , pp. 121—172: 8vo. ed. of 1822.
Immediately succeeding the mvocation of the Sdnkhya-sdra-viveka, 1s the
following passage : are oo tiraet wie aw विवेचितम्। साडः सारविवे ऽता वि गनेन प्रपञच्यते॥
.
40
The Sdnkhya-tatiwa-pradipa, by Kaviraja Yati or Bhikshu,* pupil of Vaikuntha, 1s a brief exposition of the Sinkhya system.
The Sdnkhydrtha-tattwa-pradipika, by Bhatta Kes‘ava, son of Sad4nanda, son of Bhatta Kes’ava, is a treatise rcsembling the last.t
प्रायः छलिता साङ््प्रति या कारि rare | साऽते1ऽच वणते Sura तद्न् THAT: |
Mr Ward’s version of these couplets runs thus: “The nature of spirit was examined by me briefly m the Sdnkhya-kdriké; according to my ability I now publish the Sdnkhya-sdra-vweka, in which [ have collected the essence of the Sankhya doctrines, which may all be found in the kirakds.”
The obvious rendering 1s, however, very different. ‘The Sdakhya-kdrikd has discussed the nature of spit but mcagrely: Viynéna, in the Sdankhya- séra-viveka, therefore dilates on 1t. On the other hand, the processes of the Sénkhya have, m the Adrzké collection, been, for the most part, enunciated : accordingly, they are here set forth sparingly—so far only as they are there left unnoticed.’
Mr. Ward’s text was, clearly, the same as my own, with the exception of a first case, in the second verse, instead of a seventh.
* Author of the Tatiwa-dipa also. See my Catalogue, &c., Vol. I, p. 109.
+ Colebrooke speaks of a Sankhya work entitled Sangraka. I do not recall having met, in the course of my researches, with any reference to it. See Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., p. 234.
Raya Mukuta, annotating the word upalabd’, in 1113 gloss on the Amara- kos’a, apparently quotes from a work called Sdnthya-dars’ana.
The Sdénkhya-muktdvalt, by Vodhu, 1s, further, a Sankhya work possibly now, or 0116६, 10 existence ; if the bare word of a man who has declared to me that he once possessed and studied a copy of it, 18 to be received. But I strongly suspect that he fabnicated the title of the treatise, for the occasion.
The Rev. Mr. Ward has published a list of Sankhya compositions, m his work on the Hindus; Vol. IL, p. 121: 8vo. ed. of 1822. Tlus list is, however, one mass of errors, and errors almost too gross to deserve advert- ence. It assigns the Kapila-bhdshya to Vis'wes’wari, perhaps mstead of Vijnénes’wara, as one sometimes hears Vijndna Bhikshu incorrectly called ; while it speaks of the Sdnkhya-pravachana-bhishya as a distinct com- position, and neglects to name its author. Vachaspati Mis’ra’s Sdnkhya-
~ kaumudi is, in like manner, duplicated. This for a sample.
ta
4.1
Of the history of our com entator, Vijndna Bhikshu, or Vijnéna Yati, little has been discovered. We are even unac- quainted with the civil appellation that he bore previously to commencing cenebite; aud the period at which he flourished, if mot wholly referrible to conjecture, can be determined only by approximation. He must have preceded Néges'a Bhatta, the epitomist of one of his works, who may have been living in the year 1713.* Three of his disciplest are known by name: Bhavé Ganes‘a Dikshita,} Prasfida Médhava Yogi,§ and Divya
The ignorance of our pandits very ordinarily confounds Vijnfina Bhikshu with Vijnines’wara, or Vijnina Yogi, anthor of the Miidishard. the cele- brated commentary on the YdjnavaliZya-smriti. But there is no evidence whatever that they are identical. Vijnimes’wara, who bore the title of Bhattéraka, was son of Padman&bha Bhatta, of the stock of Bharadwija. Elis preceptor was Vis’ wsrdips A’charya, likewise a scholiast of Yajnaval- kya. Ishall not undertake to establish that this Visweripa A’charya was the same person as Sures’waa A’chirya, secularily known as Mandana Mis’ra,a disciple of S’ankara A’ch4rya. See my Catalogue, &c., Vol. L, pp. 89, 91, 131.
* See a foot-note to p. 32, supra. In the prefatory verses of Viynana’s Pdlanjala-bhdshya-vértifa, according to one of the many MSS. of it which I have examimed, allusion 1s made to one Bhavyadeva, as an authority on the Yoga. Bhavadeva Mis’ra of Patma, author of the Pdtanjaliydbheunave- dhéshya, 2 commentary on the Yoga-sitra, seema to be intended. But of Ins age I know nothing.
+ M. Saint-Hilaire says: ‘‘ Un maitre n'a généralement qu'on disciple 3 un gorou n’ a qu’un brahmatchin.” Premier Mémouwe sur le Sinkhya, p. 7. Aga: “La scence, amsi que j’aieu occasion de le dire au début de ce mémoure, se transmet, dans 17146, habituellement d’un seul maitre ठ. un seul disciple” Ibid., p. 254. Thisisnmewsin India. Such unnatural cases no longer exist, if, indeed, they ever existed,
t [have ecen a MS., mthout date, of the Tuntra-ch igSinani or Dharma =
fménsé~sangraha, en elementary Miménsi disquisition, by Kmshna Deva, son of Rama A’charya, which professes to be in the hand-writing of this per- son. I hardly 61706 to consider the age of this MS. to be a couple of cen- turies, at the most.
§ Author of the S’dréra-kdrikd-bhdshya or KdrikSrtha-cinis chaya, a dis-
G |
42
Sinha Mivra.* ‘Vijnéna is the author of at 1५५५६ five ™ ru works, all of which are concerned with philosophy. Their titles, in the order, mainly, in which they wero com posed ‘| are as follows: the Vijndndmrita or Brahkma-sdira-riju- wiyptitkhinl,t the Sénkhya-pravachana-bhdshya or Sdakhya-bhishye +$ the Pitanjala-bhdehya-vériike or Yoga-vértika,\| the Sdukhyu- sdra-vireka or Sdnkhya-sdéra, and the Yoga-sdru-sanyruha or Jatna-pradipa.
I have not proposed, in this preface, to treat of the Niankhya system otherwise than with reference to the subordimate siahjects of biography and bibliography. A number of obvious ocwssions have, however, emerged for deviating from these mgid earls, Yet, for thus trespassing beyond my limits, no apology muy’, per. hapa, be expected; and none, certainly, will be requinite fora few sentences in defence of my proper charge, Vijnina Bhikshu,
|
sertation on the followmg engmatical couplet, which ity expounder elainy to derive from the Makdbhdraia :
रकया दे पिनिश्ित्य Chaghdatige | wef m विदिना कट् y fern चणो मव)
This dissertation 1s in four sections, one bemg allotted to each measure of the distich,
* Div; a Smbe Mis’ra has written a commen > by name Sdrira-kiirihd~ bhas iya-rirtike, ou the work mentioned in the Jest note. Ile styles [१4५५ feilin ae, of Prasida Midhaya Yogi, under Vijnina Bhikshu: azul he भ Prasiids Madhava as the most emment of thaw masivr’x dineaplen,
Each of these worke, from the lest upwards, citen all that. an here — age it. But the Sdukbya-bidshya and the Yoga-udrtika ११५६७ ht te sae tes enh ook Mr x i ae 9 © OF some one also, Mterpolated wue or
+ A commentary on Bédar3vanc? i क ath "0 31५१५८४, Pepe's पत्म of the erlianta ; containing
$ Ex breeig =, 3400.
43
a India, at 16४8४, Vijnéna Bhikshu’s ability as an expositor of the Sfnkhya philosophy stands unimpeached. It has, how- over, at last been disallowed by so considerable a schol in M Saint-Hilaire. But it will be easy to evince, after the ensuing si tract, whether our scholiast’s judgement, particularly as regards the specific point on which the European philosopher कि it, be as immature as has been represented.
M.. Saint-Hilaire translates and descants on the twenty-fifth of Ys’ wara Krishna’s memorial stanzas, as follows :
० VINGT-CINQUIE'ME SLOKA DE LA KARIKA. ष ० « TZensemble des onze principes doués de bonté émane du moi quand il est modifié également parle bonté. Du moi considéré comme élément primitif viennent lea éléments grossiers; il est alors obscur; et ectte double émanation n’a lieu que par Pinfluence de Pactivité.’ . © Torsque dans le moi la bonté Y’emporte sur Pobseurité et sur la méchan- ceté ou passion, le moi cat exsentiellement par; et, dans le langage १५८१ anciens maitres,“te moi, & cet état, est oppelé modifis. Sa veritable nature. c’ cat d’Atre affecté par la bonté ; et quand il est ainsi affecté, la modification qu'il regoit est celle qu'il doit véritablement recevoir; ce n’est pas en पधा que sorte une modification pour lui, puisque son essence c'est Metre bite C’eat du moi dans cette disposition que sortent les onze principes, doués alors comme lui de bonté. On se rappelle que les onze principes saut Ice cing organes de perception, les cing orgaves daction, ct ie mats, ou le coeur, placé au onzisme rang. Quand au contraire le nui est affecte १ ० acurité, on ne appelle plus Veikrits, le madifié; mais on Vappeile {४५ tidi, élément primitif, obacur; et c'est de lui que ७०१६५०८ les cing ¢ive ments grossiers, les Bhoutaévi. Mais pour produire l'une ow Pautre de ces eréations, soit lea onze organes doués de bonte, soit les cing clemeuts grou siars, 1e moi a besoin de Vinterent) ------------ le moi a besoin de intervention de Vactivité.* Par lui-mewe ५६ Haul च य कयन * The three gugas are, it may be, still an unread riddle; and I decl.ne the attempt of improving on the interpretations of them that bave been teu न of them as follows: “ The Hindu) as un : ~+ in action, under पदर? beads oF yus..ties ; arranges all the attrilmtes ०. न ॐ pee of ali ९१५५१ the sattwa, rajas, and tamas. The frst comprises the prese | aa vil of all evil, gui tie alae ce and absence of all evil; the last, ths एत am which the कता ७ of all good; and the middle one is 9 mixed quality, म : a 2
43
In India, at least, Vijnfioa Bhikshu’s ability as an expositor ofthe Sénkhya philosophy stands unimpeached, It has, how- ever, at last 0060. disallowed by so considerable a scholar as M. Saint-Hiloire. But it will be easy to evince, after the ensuing ex- tract, whether our scholiast’s judgement, particularly as regards the specific point on which the European philosopher arraigua it, be as immature as bas been represented.
M., Saint-Tilaire translates and descants on the twenty-fifth of Fs'wara Krishna’s memorial stanzas, as follows :
न VINGT-CINQUIEM® SLOKA DH LA KARIEA.
“* Liensemble des onze principes doués de bonté émane du mo. quand प eat modifié également par la bonté. Du mo. consweéré comme élément prunitf viennent les éléments grosmers; 11 ext alors obseur ; et ectte double émanation n’a heu que par l’influence de Pactivité.’
5 Loraque dans 16 moi 19 bonté |’emporte sux Pobseurité et sur ln méchan- 66४6 ou passion, le moi est essentiellement pur; et, dans le langage ies anciens maltres, ‘le moi, क cet ctat, est appelé modifié. Sa véritable nature, 0९४४ d’dtre affecté par la bonté, et quand i] est amm affecté, la modification qu'il regoit est celle qu’sl dot véritablement recevor; ce n’est pas en qnel- que gorte une modification pour im, pwsque son essence c’est d'etre bon- C’est du moi dans cette disposition que sortent les onze prnecipes, dondés alors comme lo de bonté. On ee rappelle que les onze prncipes sunt Is cinq organes de perception, les ठत organes d’achon, et le manas, on le eceur, placé an onzi@me rang. Quand en contrare le moi eat affecte d'ob- acurits, on ne Pappelle plus Veikrita, 16 mod:fié; mois on Pappelle Bhoi- tich, élément काप्य, lobscur; et c’est १७ Ini que sortent les cing éle- ments grossiex, les Bhoutinz. = 21823 pour produire Pune ou [पठ de cea eréatons, soit les onze organes doués de bonté, ecit les cmq ¢lcémeuts gios- mers, 19 mor a besoin de l’sutervention de Vactwité.* Par lui-méme be: mul
“ The three gupas are, it may be, still an unread ndidle 5 and I deelme the attempt of mproving on the interpretations of them that have been ven-
tured by my predecessors. Prof, Wilson formerly wrote of them as follons. “The Hindu systein
arranges all the attmbutes of spirit m action, under three heads or qualstres ; the saifwa, rajas, and tamas. The frst compnees the presence of all nal, and absence of all evil, the last, the presence of all evil, and the abseuce of all good; and the middle one is a mued quality, 1 shieh the wperacion
a 2
44
. „ भं तः agit ४ i] Fert एक ager qu'il a लन a bore pik ery le moi sett 3 et, par 1 प de oes Pa mo, se trouvent produits et les onze organcs et les ere Ohments + न a done quatre états successiis, ot comic पूष Pew pra Jesquelles 1 passe pour erriver 4 la création. Dabo! i} est inerle et ae produt rien; pms 0 devnent achf sous l’mfluence to la prasic ४४४१ wi ip it produt les onze organes, ct pour les produird il ext doné de banter. entia, doué d’obacarité, ul prodmt les cing éléments grossicrs. | ० Cette काणो du moi peut parattre aussi bizarre que frie ह. la pensée, quelle qu’en soit @alieurs la valent, est fort claire; ct be ५ Hite mentateur Gaoudepada n’héxite pes & Vexphquer comme on viouk ele J faire, DD entend le aloka de Ja KarikA& once sens que c'est le moi qui dorian tus. sauce aux onze organes une pert, et d’antre part aux cint 1५.4.92... mers. Maw Vidynina Bhikshou, ke commentatear des Sodtraa, + ५४६ tout
eae MP I a a ST es Ee wa
of the affections and pasmona 28 strongest, and gives occasional predumi. nance to good and JL” Quarterly Onental Mayganue for Mareli, [५५ ¢. 21. In the next page he adds: “ S’ridhera aud Nilabssathia, it 1: tue, mterpret softies by dhairya, firmness, fortitude: but they [छल the we thing, in fact, with the satiwa quality, or the Mons Solua of the पाद्व mau who is numoved by 1gnornnce and passion. ६ appcara to le the «site as the Temperatia ox Trangnilbtas of the Stores, whilst the rajew sight he eaprested by Perturbatio, and tamas by Intemperavtia.”
Mr. J. Ellie unhesitatingly renders the names of the qualities hy “ pure ummpasnoned virtue,” “ pasnon,” and “ depravity inclining to evil y"* and be believes the spocryphal Sanchonisthon to have had some inkling of these गकलक, and to have bungled them in ha mystrcal theogony, Nutive of the Rémdya, of Bodhiyana, in the Quarterly Ouiental 11 tug “a 7 pp- 8, 15, end 16.
= Sainte aays > “ Je crois qu’en (न्धा Pe 1 भुन बु ॥ attribution des (rule * car एद & homme eet
vas Gtre १० dt trai १९१४१ 0४५ theories da Sdukbya 5 je us pais leur trouver Pec a his numbreat pesages des commentateurs, des poemes et day प मान १1 question des trois qualitds, elles se présentent दण botranas of, Prenuer Mimoire sur le Shukhys, p. 317. ROUS Cet asnect,'?
45
autroment Is Kania. ९ dive est ici sat mea sree fier viens de dire que le Soult du aire "0 acts que, vn neutre en plece d'an masculia, a0 les deux commentateurs ont 16 meme teste, et le ihférenee Vinterprétation ne repose pee sur one différence d Vidjnaine comprend qu'il e’agit i de 1 1 sortant du moi ve ee — राः कि शि principe, 0७४४ da manas, da 6४, au onzidmoe ran qu'il oe a न comme wn 1's १५५ 1 g, parce qu'il est tout 4 le fois orgune de perception ¢t orcas on. It faudrat donc faire ict un changement consulérable, et suimti- tuer le manes aux onee organes. Je dois dire que le grammar ue > ४ oppase en rien, et que le texte, soit avec le neutre de Kapila, st ates i masculin d*levera Knshus, ae préte également bien ठ Pon et i Pautre ५ १,५.
*¢ Si Pon adopte explication de Vidjuine, i, foudrat traduire 14 t+ eingudme aloke de 19 fagon suivante ;
«To onziéme principe doué de bonté émane dix moi qriaud We wi. 1st modifié également par Ja bonté; da onxiéme एल) Cvlsiuerc ¢ Lh." Giémont primtif, wennent les éléments grossiers. Ce onneme ११५४०५१५ ६५४ obscur; et tous deux, ce principe et le moi, n'agment que sous Trafic ut do Pactinté.” “
० Mais on peut remarquer que cette expheation est en eoatraletivn for- metic avec les slokas quo précddent : d'abot d avec le sloka tutes ' ४१ qui fait sortir directement du mo: les seize primcipes, ६६ ५० fat softs ५४ particulier les Gléments grossiera dea éléments subtila; et स^ ५५९ Le gloka vingt-quatnéme, qui reprodut la meme doctrine. Ti fant ay ११. १५५ ectte doctrme que nous resronyons dona la Kariké vient de Kapow ucts ss comme 16 prouve le sofitra que nous avons até, Sons devuns dubd ५८.५१५ ta fier & expheation de Gaoudapada plutét qu’d celle de Vidynuna. Daas + aystime sinkhys bien interprété, les cing éidments grogsters vituurnt “ys eing éléments subtils; et les aang éléments subhis avee 1५१ onze Organs vienuent 00 2000. Ce vest pas le manas, le eceur, qui produit les eb ४५५ Ute grossiers, comme le erot Vidjaina Binkshou ; et ce qu doit nous ett Lic? encore davantage dans 607 erreur, ९९४४ que, dans le avutra न uae ns précédent, Kapila dit expreasément, lectuxe deuxieme, goltrs “he | * Liefiet du moi, cent ensemble des onze orgenes ct des cng clemeate grossiers.” Quelque déliest qu'il sou de we pronoucer ee dex questwons de ec genre, nous croyors pouvoir efiirmer que Vidjnans (व sunt
5 de son opim1on. muer 3i-
trompé, ¢ quill n’y > point & tent compte op socire sar 15 Sinkhys, PP- 99--108. vial calla M. Saint-Hilaire’s rendering of the memo couplet 9
Syst of all, for attention.
47
In the preceding extract we read that it is of the essonce of egotism to be good. Yet it is no more so than it is of its es-
produced from egotaam only by the mtermediate agency of the elementary particles.
The mistake which Professor Wilson falls into, after his attempt to cor- rect Colebrooke, can eamly enough be accounted for. Gandapfda says: भूतागामादिमूतः | wary रष्छेनेक्षः च तास इति | The the Professor translates thua: “ The first element of the elements 18 darkness; there- fore 1४ 18 usually called the dark.’? But the word here rendered by “ first ele- ment” would, as masculine, mean ‘firat being,’ if xt were a substantive ; ° first element’ requirmg, not ddibhiiah, but dd:bhtiiam. Bemg, however, an adjective, it refers to ®, the second factor of which 1t justifies etymolo- gieally. This reference should have been evident from the gender of uktah, ea, and t@masa; and alao from thet of dakulas, which, with ite present ending, and, moreover, as it stands im the sentence, could never be an adverb. It 1s not propounded that the elements omginate from their like, from an element; and, while nothing 1s predicated of darkness, darkness is predicated aa characterizing one of the varieties of egotism. The passage ated above will, therefore, admit of no other translation than such as this: ‘It, origin of the elements, 1s origmary, vis., of the elements: sf 4s also surcharged with darkness; and hence 1s called dark.’ To bear out Professor Whileon’s English, the Sanskrit should have stood thus: भूतागासादिमूतं लमः। सेन ब Wat सत् सामखूमिति।
In giving the passage from Gaudapéda, I have supplied it with punctua- tion, and the only punctuation that 6 will abide.
In the Viskpu-purdéna, at I, 12, 53, the term bkdtdds ‘generative of the elements,’ epithetically employed in place of ‘dark egotism,’ 1s agam ren- dered, by Professor Wilson, “first element.” See his Translation, p. 93, 106 12,
Professor Wilson, building on bis overmght, indulges m the following comment, which may now be cancelled: “ There 1s a remaikable expres- sion 1 the Ghdshya, which presents a notion famler to all ancient cosmogonies. Gandapada says, ‘ the firat of the elements was darkness.’ It isthe first of the ‘ elements,’ not the first of “things;’ for 16 was pre- ceded by unevolved nuture, and intellect, and it is itself a modified form of wmdividuality. It therefore harmonizes perfectly well with the prevathng ideas in the ancient world, of the state of thmgs anterior to elementary or visible creation, when ‘ chaos was, and night,’ and when
48
sence to be dark, or to be active. To the end that egotism may acquire the distinction of pure, it is not necessary that it should
णोमा यामि मितमान
Nullus adhuc mundo praebebat lumina Titan,
Nec nova crescendo reparabat cornua Phebe. In the influence of the quality of foulness, or passion,—for the word rajas has both senses,—may be suspected an affinity to the doctrine of an active principle, the movmg mind, the eros, that set inert matter mto motion, and produced created things.” Sdnkhya-karikd, p. 94.
Lassen, who was the first to translate the whole of Is’wara Knshna’s treatise, had a right understanding of bhdtddi. ^ Caterva undenum essentialis pro- fiascitur € sui sensu essentiali; rudimentalis ex (sui sensu) elementorum generatore; haec caliginosa est. Ex impetuoso (sm sensu) utralibet oritur creatio.” Twenty-fifth kdrikd, 10 Gymnosophista, p 58.
C. J. H. Wmdischmann prudently follows Lassen; putting “ Anfang der Elemente” for bkitéidd:. Die Philosophie im Fortgang der Weltgeschichte, p. 1816.
A revised version of the kéri/a@ 10 question is here submitted: “ The class of eleven, consisting of purity, proceeds from egotism techxically called modified. From egotism, as the source of the elements, the rudimental particles originate ; and this form of egotism ts imbued with darkness. Bud £ 05 only from egotism when affected by activity that the one and the other, the class of eleven and the elementury paritcles, take theur rise”
It may be observed that, while Professor Wilson, at p. 94 of the Sdnkhya-kariké, considers egotism, 10 one of its kinds, as “the first of the elements,” at p. 121 he places, by the side of the tan-mdiras * subtile elements,’—which emanate from egotism, and give birth to the gross ele- ments,—as speciously comparable, the ororxeia aroixelwy of Empedocles. For the seemmg parallel to these elemental ultimates, the Professor ought, in consistency, to have gone back to dark egotism. But it has previously been shown that the Sankhya does not recognise as elementary anything antecedent to the particles so designated.
The Professor’s remarks, incidentally bearmg on the functions of ९१४८८ di, at p. 164 of the Sdnkhya-kdrokd, are unsubstantiated. The text on which these mistaken observations are founded, is as follows: waqutfaa: सगा लि ङसगा WATT भतसगा दवेमानषतये ना TI प्रधान तः षोडण्सगेः “Thus, non-elemental creation, rudimental creation, conditional and cle- mental creation, in beings of divine, mortal, brutal, and (mmovable) origin, are the sixteen sorts of creation effected by nature.” Such 1s Professor
49
consist wholly of purity; the mere preponderance of this qua-
1 Wilson’s translation; instead of which we should certainly read: ‘ The non-elcmental creation,—z, e., the rudimental creation and the conditional creation,-and the elemental creation, or the aggregate of beings of divine, mortal, and brutal, origin, are the sixteen sorts of creation proceeding mediately from nature.’
My MS. wants the word मतसर ‘elemental creation ;’ but its mser- tion, as an equivalent of the तीतिकः Wai: of the 53d kdrikd, 1s quite पण material. Moreover, I have corrected a grammatical madvertence.
The elemental creation has fourteen divisions ; and the two branches of the non-elemental count, each, as unity. The sum of sixteenis thus completed. There is, then, no such respective reference, in the above passage, as may have led the Professor to supply the word ‘immovable,’ and which induced lim to make the following comment: “ Apparently, each of the four classes of bemgs proceeds from four modifications of nature, or, from the mvisible principles, from the subtile rudiments, from the conditions or dispositions of intellect, and from the gross elements.”
The evolution of the Sankhya prmeiples as recited m the Vishnu-purdna, 18 strangely misrepresented by the translator. A simgle sample will suffice.
भतादिस् विकुवेएएः शन्द्तन््राचिकं aa | BUST शन्ट्तन्माचाद्ाका् शब्द् स्लचणम्। WE VA त गऽऽकाशं भूतादिः स समाटणएात्॥ I., 2, 37-8.
०८ Klementary Egotism then becoming productive, as the rudiment of sound, produced from it Ether, of which sound is the characteristic, vesting 1t with its rudiment of sound” Traislation, p. 16.
The correct rendering 1s, however: ‘The element-engendermg egotism, being modified, then produced the rudiment of sound; and, from the rudi- ment of sound, the ether, whose characteristic is sound: and this element- engendcimg egofism, similarly to agents in processes before mentioned, mnvest- ed the ether, which consists of sound.’
Almost the entire page from which the passage above animacverted on is taken, 1s disfigured by the style of misapprehension Just pomted out. In one place, m fact, in order to foree the construction desired, the nomina- tive singular »éyz—euphonically requred for vdéyuh—is made accusative. Samtly lbertics vastly more licentious than this, are often taken, in the Puranas, but there is, 111 this instance, no temptation whatever to do vio-
lence to Panu.
50
lity being held sufficient for the purpose.* Further, the term mands is said to mean ‘heart.’ At p. 30, it is called “ Vesprit vital”’? At p. 106, a choice is allowed out of “le cceur,” “Vesprit,’ and, ^ pour prendre une expression plus juste et assez souvent employée dans notre langage philosophique, le sensorium commune.’+ The manas is defined, by Sankhya authorities, to be one of the soul’s three internal organs, without which there is no experience of joy or grief; 10. the same way as, for instance, but for the eye, one of the soul’s external organs, sight 18 impossible.
In order to adjust the twenty-fifth Adrikd after Vijndéna’s conception of manas, M. Saint-Hilaire correctly premises that this word must be substituted, in the couplet, for the cleven organs. But, professing to effect this substitution, while he once puts manas for the eleven organs, he puts it three times for ego- tism. He also puts egotism for subtile elements, or, rather, gross elements ; for he foists this blunder of his own, as well as his bor- rowed primitive element, on the injured commentator. Again, purposing to censure Vijndéna, he remarks rightly, at first, that, “in the Saénkhya system, accurately expounded, the five gross elements issue from the five subtile elements ; and the five sub- tile elements, and the eleven organs, from egotism.’ Yet, in
* Indeed, in the twenty-fifth kdrikd itself we have the word wkrita ‘mo- dified’ as a synonyme of sdttwika ‘pure.’ Elsewhere, vaikdmka ‘ modifica~ tional’ occurs as 118 substitutes.
t Professor Wilson had already explamed manas to be “an internal sense, a sensorium.” Sénkhya-karikd, p.100. Colebrooke calls 1४ a “ sen- sitive, material organ,” and hkens it to the कण्ठः of Pythagoras. Muscell Essays, Vol. L., p. 418.
The word manas has often been compared to the Greck pévos ; but, whe- ther as used in the Sdnkhya system, or elsewhere, it bears very little simila- rity to this term, which “seems most commonly to answer to the Latin word impetus, aud mplies rather a physical, than mental, energy. Homer places it, at different times, in the knees, the @duos, the 0716059 and the phy.” Mhtchell’s Wasps of Aristophanes, p, 103,
51
translating and annotating the twenty-fifth Adrikd, we have seen that it is the gross elements which he derives immediately from ०९080,
But Vijnéna has clearly enough set forth his view of the twenty-fifth Adrikd, as M. Saint-Hilaire would have seen, Lad he read, even with the aid of Professor Wilson, the scholiast’s interpretation of the eighteenth Aphorism of the second Book.* After alleging manas to mean the eleventh organ, Vijuéna explains ‘both’ to refer to the intellectual organs and the organs of action. The Adrikd will, then, run thus: ‘ The eleventh organ, consisting of purity, origimates from modified egotism. From egotism, as the source of the elements, proceed the rudimental particles; and this variety of egotism is imbued with darkness. From egotism affected by activity, arise both the intellectual organs and the organs of action.’
Vijnina is, therefore, peculiar, as compared with some others, in deducing, from pure egotism, but a single product, mind, instead of eleven, viz., mind and the ten organs of intellection and action: the latter being referred, by him, to the active species of egotism ; which is held, on the adverse interpretation, to be, independently, inoperative, but yet an indispensable con- dition of energy on the part of the other two modifications of the scl{-conscious principle. To defend, textually, his exegesis of the latter part of the twenty-fifth kdrikd, Vijnana must be suppos- ed to contemplate the twenty-sixth kdrikd ; imasmuch as the organs of understanding and action are there mentioned for the first time 11) the treatise: aud this anticipation is clearly impractica- blc, save by the dislocation of all syntax. Nevertheless, the im- port which Vijnana contends for, is far from being a peculiarity
ee
1 Sdukhya-karikd, p. 94. Professor Wilson here, too, however, requires to be set nght. Forgetting the order 1n which he has just enumerated the modifications of egotism, he writes “the other ten, from the second kind; and the elements, from the third.” The words ‘ second’ and * third’ must
he transposed, H 2
52
personal to himself only. Both the sets of Aphorisms attributed to Kapila are silent on the topic under discussion ; and so is the Mahabharata. Arguing, however, from the Hindu point of view,—such as it is,—our commentator is supported by the divine testimony of the Puranas, against the mere human authority of I'/s'wara Krishna and his successors.* At all events, the ex-
* The productiveness of active egotism 18 the doctrine of the Puranas. The Mahdbhdrata, after XII., 11395, where it would be expected to pro- pound either this view, or else one that would preclude it, 1s suggestively mute. Can it be that this tenet 18 a developement dating subsequently to I's’wara Kmshna’s time; having been, since then, grafted on the Puranas? I quote, below, from these works. ।
भततन्माचसर्भाऽयमदङ्ारात् तु तामसात्। < > nO ॐ ` ते सान्येन्द्रघाण्या द्वावकारिकाङर्श॥ eared ways देवा वैकारिकाः Gar: | Vishnu-purana, I., 1, 46-7.
^^ This is the elemental creation, proceeding from the principle of egotism affected by the property of darkness. The organs of sense are said to be the passionate products of the same principle, affected by foulness; and the ten divimities proceed from egotism affected by the principle of goodness ; as does mind, which 1s the eleventh.’ Prof. Wilson’s Translation, pp. 17, 18
In a foot-note to p. 16, Prof. Wilson repeats Gaudapada’s account of the three sorts of egotism, but without directing attention to its contradiction of his text.
For a passage to the same effect with the verses given above, see the Bhdgavata purdna, 111. 5, 29 seqq.: also II], 26, 27 seqq. It is the first of these two passages that 1s cited, by Vynana, at p. 118. Viraraghava, 10 his commentary, the Bhdgavata-chandrikd, wrests the word tatjasdt, in the fourth verse, into congruity with the dogmas of I's’wara Kmshna and his school, by explaming it to denote ^ with the aid of passional egotism.’
Add: aaifcaree Rrra खरौ वेकारिकाऽभवत्। ते सानोन्दरियारि wear sarfcat am CHIH HATA सगृुणनेाभया TF | भूतत Mes भूतादेरभवन् FT Ml Kirma-purdna, prior section, 4th chapter.
v
58
pression of amazement ventured by M. Saint-Hilaire, is alto- gether gratuitous; and it would have been well had he foregone the temerity of impeaching, with lcadlong disparagement, the adjudication, by so acute and learned a writer as Vijndna, of a nice philosophical punctuality. Vijnaéna, so far from the pre- posterous solecism of deducing any of the elements from mind, expands the seventeenth Aphorism of the second Book im these words: ‘ The eleven organs, and the five subtile elements, 2. ¢., sound, &c., are the products of egotism’* Gross from subtile
Pure egotism, here, again, is made to generate the ten superintending dei- ties, who, according to the Sankhya system as ordimarily enunciated, except in the Purdinas, must form part of the world of animation, which ema-~ nates from the subtile elements. The names of these deities occur m the Bhagavata-~purdna, IJ., 5, 30. M. Burnouf, in his translation of this work, Vol. 1., p. 122, renders the appellation of one of them, Dis’, by “les points cardinaux.”? The directions are vanously computed, by the Hindus, at four, eight, and ten. Professor Wilson arbitrarily expresses Dis’ by ९ space.” Vishnu-purdya, p. 17, 28th foot-note.
An eleventh deity 1s recognised by some of the Puranas,—the moon, whose presidency is over mind.
In the verses quoted above, from the Kurma-purdna, mind is strangely said to partake of the two qualities of activity and purity.
The Sarva-dars’ana-sangraha considers the ten organs and mind to be cflluences from pure egotism, and silently ignores any hypothesis of ther ornginating otherwise.
It 1s ४ curious circumstance that this work nowhere mentions the San- khya Aphorisms ; its authority on hylotheistie matters, wherever a text 1s to be cited, being the Kériké of I’s'‘wara Krishna.
An examination of S’anhara Acharya’s Surva-siddhdnla-sangraha, which Ihave not been able to procure, would, very probably, throw light on the Sankhya as received in the eighth century. The nith chapter of this treatise 1s occupied with the doctrine of Kapila. See Zeitschrift der Deuts- chen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, Vol. I., p 200.
* Sce, at p. 45, supra, M. Samt-IIilaire’s incorrect translation of the passage which [render thus. The essayist’s hecdlessness 1s, here, unac- countable.
54
follows of neccssity.* As to the rest, his predilections, alike in the present instance aud elsewhere, are for the doctrines of the original Sentences, as altered and amplified by Paurdnika inno- vation.
The SAénkhya system assumes, in practice, the form of the adoration of nature,t or, rather, of a sublimated ideal essence of
* Inthe Sainkhya Aphorisms, the coordinate emanation, from the sub- tile elements, of the gross elements, 1s expressly mdicated as early as 1., 61,— which M. Samt-Hulaire passes by, as has previously been shown :—and Vijnana, m his notes, is nowise eccentric in his paraphrase of this text.
+ Mila-prakrity, the primordial agent, whose analogues, in the several Eindu schools of philosophy, are too notorious to call for repetition. The late Rev. Dr. W. H. Mill has likened it to the "०८० of (08116180, “ mm which, as m the Sankbya, vous, or mtellect, buddhe,—otherwise called ma- hat,—is the first-born offspring; and then all separate mdividual essences.” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for 1835, p. 386. Such was the dream of Valentme, as we learn from Ireneus: Aéyovot yap twa eivar év 2004700 Kal dxarovoudoros tydpaot TéAeovy Alva mpodvta TotTov 6६ छो * करै कै # * TIoomdropa kal 2४000 xadotow. * * ॐ # # (7402८00 S abrov dydpyrov kal ddparov, didiov re Kal dyéevyyrov ९» गरौ ४6८छ Kat jpe- pia णोत yeyovévas év 7640०८5 ०0000 xXpovev. SvvuTdpyew ® धग kal "Eyvowy, iv को व Xdpw श्वय उदनो, dvoudLovor. Kal évwvonGivat wore 64 éavTou mpoBarccba tov BuOov rotrov dpxiy 70५ mdvTwv, Kat Kaldrep orépa THY TpoBoAdny rainy (nv mpoBadéoOa. évevoyOn) Kal karafécGas, Gs €/ (1710 TH cvvurapxoton व्ण 30. Tadryv dé trode€apevyy १0 oméppa Toiro Kal éyKipova yevouevny aroxujoat Novy ८८0८6! Te Kal cov 76 mpoBaddvre Kal pdvoy xwpovvra 76 péyebos tod ILarpdés. Tov dé Noiv rourov Kat Movoyery Kadotcn, Tlarépa cal “Apyiy rOv कर Svpmpo- BeBjobon एदे airG (^ लव. Kat ivan ककार mparyy Kal apyéyovov Tludayopuciy Terpaxtiv, fw cot piLey tov mévrwv Kadotow. “Bore yap Bubds col Suyh, érevra Notis cal "4906, Irene Opera, ed. Stieren : Lipsiae, 1853: Tom 1. pp. 10 seqq. Cyn, of Jerusalem, gives Valentine’s genealogy of the Acons very differently : 0 Bubds éyevvyce Seyi, Kal dro ris 3८/95 érexvorroles Adyov, x. 7. A. Catech. VI.
In the Refutation of all Ileresies, by Elippolytus, Irenzeus’s disciple, it 18 shown, however, that Simon, the Samaritan sorcerer, a precursor
85
the material world, for which the European lan
guages, nowise to their discredit, want a name,
That this scheme of speculation
~~~ ~~~ a
of Valentine, had quite a different cosmogony,—-and not in nomen-
clature only: Avo हठ rapadudSes tay €). 04८०1८01; (८0/76 (कए pte
7८0५5 ९१८८४००५ ATO pas (0८५, 05 द्य 0४/५५; ८9}, ddparos, dxard- ANTTOS, WY 1) (८८५ daiverat dvubev, 107८9 €07८ peyady duvajats, Note say dduv, वैया ra wdvra, dpoyv, ‘H 8 €7 ९०५० Kérwber, Errivow. peyddy, Orca, yervara वतेः wdvra. Simon’s ’“Amddacis Meydhy. Vide Ongenis [lege [कणप] Philosophumena, sive Omnium Heeresium Refutatio, ed Mmmanucl Miller; p.173. Though Gregory of Nazianzus—supported by his commentators, Khas of Crete and Nicetas Serron—declares that Simon talked of both Bu@os and चनः yet the evidence of what are, presumably, the soreerer’s own words, is opposed to this assertion. Theodoret describes Simon’s nonsense similarly, as far as regards this parr of powers; only, hke Ireneus, he puts”Evvo.a for Buy. And yet he brmgs m *Evvo.a a second time, as springing, with ®uv}, from Nots and "Kerdvow. For this second “Evvow. we must read” Ovopa.
Snuon’s “Exivoue thus appears to become, with Valentine, "Evvo.a ; only the latter 1s, now, mother of Nots, mstead of mate. ”Eyvo. has, here, however, another name, Sy); which is, with Simon, the appellation of the source of Live... But Simon’s Syj—otherwise called tp?—has no obvious partner, to serve as prototypeto the paramour Buds. In other words, Simon starts with a monad, while Valentine sets out with a duad. Valentme’s theory, m producing the world, at the outset, by generation, is, therefore, in one respect, nearer the Sankhya than 1s that of Simon; who, to every ap- pearance, maintains a twofold effluence, prior to any process of procreation. The Sdnkhya first begets, and then introduces evolution.
For Simon Magus’s peyady dvvapis, see the Acts of the Apostles, VILL, 10. In the homilies ascribed to Clement of Rome, the expression “ great power of God,” as applied, by Simon, to himself, receives the following turn : Siuwv, dpurrepd rod @eod Stvapus dv, cat वि, rov Oeov ०४८ elOdTuy € KuKorroug THY eourtav éxwv. Clementis Roman quae feruntur 07011126 Vigmt, ed. Dressel: Gottmgae, 1853: p. 174. Simon’s 0४१०८८५ cannot but remind the Sanskrit scholar of the Hindu वदु, But the former term was applied to either sex, whereas the other 1s rest icted to females.
Dr. Mill, in connection with the remark lately cited, puts forward a state- ment touching 0116 of the fundamentals of Hinduism, which, as coming
9
57
4 व्क 2०३ controversial adventures,—a romance which unques- tioning credulity has affiliated on Ananda Girl,—the great Vedantic doctor is represented as having been confronted, in the course of his rambles, by only a single Sankhya, one Laksh- mana. Though the heretic would, of course, eventually suc- cumb, it yet cost his doughty opponent, in this instance, but few words to boast a new pervert.*
In preparing the present publication for the press, [ employed, for the body of the work, three manuscripts, which agreed among themselves to such a degree as to occasion little doubt or dif-
* Nor was S’ankara here constrained, in oider to enfo.ee lis ereed, to appeal to the argument of his disciples’ staves and sandals: a mode of propagandism to which, on the word of his biographer, he was, at all times, sufficiently prone to have recourse.
The author of the S’ankara-dig-viyaya, unscrupulous fabler as he was, has yet described the Sankhyatheory with sufficient accuracy. It is difficult to say whether he is equally exact in his account of the ascendancy which it had acquired, m his day, among 118 professors.
S’ankara’s argumentation with Lakshmana can readily be imagmed ; but Lakshmana’s confession of faith, being brief, shall be adduced. It purports to be borrowed, and 1s as follows:
ayaa प्रधानं दि मदन्ननलदिकारणएम्।
अव्यक्ल य भावं च Was परात् परम्| दति। तदुपासनमावचेण सक्तिः सच्चिदिता Sura | कपिलादिभिराचय्येराहतं योगमुत्तमम् ॥ इति ॥
‘The chief one—or primeval nature—is the equilibrium of the three quali- ties; the source of the great principle, or intelhgence, and of the rest of the derwatwe material principles ; undiseermble, as cause ; also discernible, 2 its products ; smgular in the wold, superior to what—viz , intellagence—is stself superior, 2 a descending series.
‘Through the mere worslup thereof do men attain salvation, and Kapila and other teachers engaged in the most exalted contemplation °
The latter couplet, if not a forgery, 1s scarcely in accord with M. Saimt- Hilaive’s assertion: ‘* Le Bouddhisme cst deveuu une religion; ct c’est un but que n’a jamais poursuivi Pécole du Sankhya.” Premier Mémorre sur le Sankhya, p. 4.
58
ficulty. None of them had a date; and they all wore a modern appearance. For correctness they were respectable. As the last pages of the sixth Book were passing through the prin- ter’s hands, two other manuscripts were obtained. One was undated; the other was transcribed in the Samvat year 1711, or A. D. 1654. They discovered few blemishes; but, while presenting, throughout, a great similarity to one another, they differed, in many respects, from my earlier materials. Full particulars of these discrepancies will be found in the Appendix. This, for the benefit of Hindu students, I have given in San- skrit; but in a style so simple that no European who has passed his novitiate in the classical language of India, will have reason to complain that it was not written in English. In this Appendix I have, also, frequently referred to Amruddha’s and Mahddeva’s readings of the aphorisms. Of these sentences, unaccompanicd by commentary, I had two excellent manuscripts. To ascertain the sentences the more completely, L likewise collated three very accurate copies of Nages’a Bhatta’s abstract of my author’s text. Nages‘a cites the aphorisms at leng th.*
For the tedious array of emendations which deform the con-
* The first edition of the Sénkhya-pravachana-bhdshya bears the imprint of Serampore, 1821: Svo. pp. 220. This seems to be the publieation an- nounced as having been projected by ^^ Mr. Carey and his assistants,’ un- der the auspices of the Council of Fort William, and the Asiatic Society of Bengal. See Roebnek’s Annals of the College of Fort Wilham, p. 157. The faults of that impression need not now be made the subject of mmute recital A characteristic sample of them may be seen 111 the footenote at the bottom of pp. 21—24 supra. The editors of the volume had the advantage of a manuscript, or manuscripts, much superior to the use they made of their apphauces Several of the longer additional passages which I derived from my codices Jast procured, and which will be found in the Appendix, occur in the Serampore edition also
In 1852, Dr. Ballantyne published the first fasciculus of “ The Aphorisms of the Sankhya Philosophy of Kapila, with Illustrative Extracts from the Commentaries.” It was followed, in 1854, by a second fasciculus, com- pleting the fourth Book.
59
clusion of the volume, I plead my distance from the press, and the brittleness of Anglo-Indian type- etal.*
_ A Bangali translation of the Sdnkhya-pravachana-bhéshya, entitled Sdn- khya-bhishd-sangraha, was undertaken by Ramajaya Tarkaélankara Bhatti- charya, son of Mntyunjaya. So, at least, the work itself sets forth: but the Friend of India Magazine for 1823, No. VIIL., 2. 567. makes them to be joint translators; and adds that they were, the last-named in succession to the other, “chief pandits in the Supreme Court.” Mrityunjaya, surnamed. Vidyalankara, had previously been head pandit in the College of Fort William. This version conforms very closely to the Serampore edition of the original, from which, while still unpublished, it appears to have been prepared. How much of this translation was executed, or how much of 1t was printed, [I am unable to say. All that I have seen of it is a fragment of 168 octavo pages, breaking off, abruptly, 10 the midst of the commentary on the eighty-ninth Aphorism of the first Book—accordimg to my number- ing. The volume was published at Serampore, mn 1818. It opens with a short preface m Sanskrit; and it gives the sutras m the origmal language, and in large characters.
At Benares I have seen, 10 manuscript, a prose translation, m the pro- vincial dialect, of the Sdénkhya-szitra and of Viynana’s exposition im abstract. The author was Ahitiem Rakshapéla Daibe; who also showed me [indi versions, made by himself, on a like model, of the Yoga, Nyaya, Vais’e- shika, Vedanta, and Mimansa, Aphorisms, and of S’andilya’s Sentences on Devotion. Each of these translations was accompanied, like the Sénkhya- sutra, by a Hindi gloss, abridged from the Sanskrit.
* A more thorough scarch for defects than that which resulted in the list of errata at the end of the volume, has yielded the following additional
ones; P. 1. For read Pe 1 For read 85 21 -कायैणा - aru 161 21 मनना- नना- 126 423 त्यक्त _ त्यु म् 165 15 गतः at व्य- 129 9 at -ङगैकारे 208 2 पूर्वत् पूववत् 147 5 द्विविधः -द् दिविघः 210 18 -अद्ं -- 156 7 -तदका- -तद्वि T- 932 1 §t- RT Appendix.
2 20 1 नला- 40 22 afae- परिद्द- 37 21 ४ नन्षे- 41 1 चति खि 98 25 - स - 1% 42 25 -द्याष्य Are
60
In bringing out this work, I have received assistauce, in varl- ous ways, from Pandits Kas‘indtha Sdstri Ashtaputre Punekar, Bechan Tiwari, Balakrishna S/dstri Khandakar, and Vitthala S‘Astri Jos'i Ambuvekar. To each and 10 all I offer my grateful acknowledgements.
Ajmere, Rajputana; the 10th of September, 1855.
ADDITIONS AND EMENDATIONS.
P. 1, notes, last line. For “ néris’wara” read “ nirés’wara.” The passage here intended will be found at the sixth page of the prescnt work
P. 2, notes, 1. 1. For “corresponding” read “corresponding, in some measure.
P. 2, notes, 1.4. For ^ साड्द्यः' read “ gTS et.”
P. 2, notes, 11. 20 and 26. For ^ aTereqr:” and “ sdnkhydh” read ^ सङ्ख्याः! and “ sankhy ah.”
P. 9, notes, 1.7. Add references to the Enghsh translation of the Rig- veda, Vol. I., p. 233, foot-note; and Vol. II, pp. 56 and 90, foot-notes. Also see, for a view adverse to that hastily expressed by the णा प्ल, the Norukta, Dawata-kdnda, 6,7: p. 171 of Roth’s edition
P. 9, notes, 1. 21. The S’abda-kalpa-druma, pp. 1831-2, cites the fiftieth chapter of the Vémana-purdna, as making Sanathumira, Sandtana, Sanaka, and Savandana, children of Dharma and Tinsi. What follows, respecting Kapila, Vodhu, Asuri, and Panchas’ikha, is not altogether clear.
P. 9, notes, 1. 24. In the Bhdgavata-purdna, I., 3, 11, Kamla is spoken of as having only revived the Sankhya. From the same work, IX, 8, 14, 3 appears, however, to be asserted that he originated it. The ensuing couplet, from the last section of the Padma-purdna, is to the same effect :
खेतद्धोपपतिः साङ्प्यप्रणेता सवेसिद्धिराय्।
विश्चप्रकाश्तिज्नानयेगे मादतमिखब्दा॥ Vishnu-vytha-bheda-varnana chapter.
‘hp
A Hindu would harmonize these discordant assertions by assuming that they point to events of two several stages of the world’s history.
P. 10, notes, 1. 22. If Colebrooke—Misccllancous Essays, Vol I., pp. 230, 231—means to intimate that, in Gaudapada’s commentary, Paneha- s‘ikha is said to be Kapila’s disciple, either directly, or through A’suri, the assertion is an oversight. That A'’suri was Panchasikha’s preceptor is de-
~
61
clared in the seventieth kdrikd ; but on this couplet Gaudapida makes no remark,
P. 11, notes, 1.14 For “37 read “ 4.”
९, 12, notes, 1. 3. Colebrooke—Muscellaneous Essays, Vol. I., p. 231— speaks of the passage given at the bottom of p 10 supra, and referred to at p- 17 infra, as bemg one of Panchas‘ikha’s sdtras. But it is not so diseri- minated by Vyasa, nor by Vyasa’s commeutators, though they name Pancha- s‘ikha as its author. Colebrooke, 1t 1s evident, did not suspect that reference was anywhere made to more than one work of this ancient writer.
P. 12, notes, 1.25. Gaudapada cites this couplet twice. On one occasion he reads ^ vaset”’ for “‘sthztah.” The same distich is quoted by Charitra Sinha Gani, in his commentary on the Shad-dars’ana-samuchehaya.
P. 12, notes, last line. For ^^ papmd”’ read “‘pdpmd.”
P. 14, notes, 1. 8. Of this passage the words qyfcurfaat aah : are adduced as Panchas’ikha’s, in the concluding chapter of the Sarva-dar- s‘ana-sangraha.
P. 15, notes, 1. 22, For “ propitiation-service” read “ satisfaction-service.”’ The former term rather translates क, a very common office of religion, among the Hindus.
P. 15, notes, 1.41. In place of “ Rudra’ there are preferable grounds for conjecturing “Ribu.” See the Translation of the Vishnu-purdna, p. 38.
P. 17, notes, 1 24. Elsewhere, however, it is denied that Kapila was son of Kardama, by Devahtti; another and later wife of the patriarch, of unspe- eified name, being the sage’s mother. As to Devahdti, she 1s represented as the daughter, not of Manu Syayambhuva,—as 1s ordinarily declared,—but of Trinabindu. The original of these statements is expressed in the following words ;
घमेद् त्त Vary | way विजयस्व दिष्णेद्धाः यम oT aT | किन्त ताभ्यां gut tw य Te तद्रूपधघारिणा॥१॥ गणवचतुः। द्णःवन्यास कन्यायां दे वहहन्यां परा दविज | Haag g SSF YAl Sl wag il Sel जयः केनिष्ठेऽभूद् वि wate नामतः | न्यस्यासभवत् पश्चात् कपिला योमघ्रभवित् ॥ 2 | Padma-purdna, Pdtéla-khanda, 97th chapter.
२, 20, notes, 1. 6. For ^ Gaurt-varnana” read “ Gaurt-vivéha-varnana.” P. 20, notes, 1. 8. For “Kalapa’”’—which should have been ‘* Kalpa”’— read ^ Indraprastha.”
62
?. 20, notes, 1. 18, The Kapila-gétd, 10 a detached form, has also been found. It professes to be a part of the Padma-purdna, and 1s concerned with the practices of the yoga, or theocrasy.
P 21, notes, 1.24. For ^ Nagoji” read ^ Nagoyi.”
1. 26, notes, 1.21. According to Colebrooke, the Pis’upatas—like the followers of Misra—maintam ‘the distinct and separate existence of the efficient and material causes of the universe.’ Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., pp. 407, 409, and 412.
P. 26, notes, 1. 26. The author of the Shat-tantré-séra proves to be no other than the Nilakantha who annotated the Mahdbhdrata, and wrote the Veddnta-kataka. His parents were Govinda and Phullimbika 3 his line was that of Gautama; his family name was Chaturdhara; and he resi- ed at Karpara, now Kofipar, in Maharashtra, to the west of the (७०५४१९1, near the temples of S’ukres’wara and Kaches’wara. A man who calls himself grandson of this Nilakantha, is now living at Benares.
Govinda Dikshita—the Govinda above mentioned, or some other, but of the Chaturdhara family—was father of 81४3 Dikshita, author of the Dhar- ma-tattwa-prakds a, the date of which 1s S’aka 1668, or A. D. 1746.
P. 27, notes, 1. 15. For « विपथेयः'? read “ विपर्यय?
P, 28, notes, 1.12. For ^ जारा" read ^ -द ङ्कारा.
P. 33, notes, 1.5. For < Ashtaputra”’ read ^ Ashtaputre.”’
P. 33, notes, 1. 6. For “ Raji” read “ Raja? Correct similarly at p. 36, notes, 1, 23; and at p. 37, notes, 1. 30.
P. 34, notes, 1.15. The Jainas affect to have thew own Sankhyas, M1- minsakas, &c. Mackenzie Collection, Vol. IL, p. xxxvi.
P. 34, notes, 1.29. The anthor of the Tattwa-chandra mives the title of Muni to I's’wara Krishna, and distinctly calls him disciple of Panchas‘ikha,
P. 35, notes, 1.2. For ^ Durga” read “ Durgii.”
P. 35, notes, 1.9. The use of aliases is by no means infrequent among Hindu authors. Though not, generally, of much mterest, one occurs to me, which seems worth recording. Like the run of facts connected with Indian history, it has no better support, however, than the unwritten tradi- tion of the schools.
Jayadeva, the author of the Géta-govinda, 1s sad to have been the same person as Pakshadhara Mis’ra, the dialectician. Report has it that Ins custom was to attend his Nyaya teacher no oftener than once a fortmght, and that he owed to this fact his title of Pakshadhara. Quite possibly this 1s mere fiction; and it may have had its ongin, partially, in the cirenmstance that there was a logician Jayadeva, who is spoken of as having been likewise a poet. See my Catalogue, &c., Vol. I., p. 51, 1. 5 ; and its Appendix, p. 161.
63
Professot Lassen—Gita-govinda, Prolegomena, p.v.—, for want of an op- portunity tO @xamine the Chandréloka, 13 in doubt whether the Jayadeva to whom it 18 attributed be identifiable with the lyric poet of the same name. The question is one of no difficult decision.
The Jayadewva of the Chandrdloka was, by his own showing, son of Maha- deva, surnamed Yajnika, and of Sumitra. Jayadeva, the author of the Prasan- nardghava@ drama, particularizes the same persons as his parents, and further states that his family was denominated Kaundinya. Whether the Chandréa- loka, a dry technical treatise, was the production of the writer of the Giéta- govinda, could. scarcely be ascertained by comparmg the necessarily different styles of the two compositions. The Prasanna-rdéghava is, however, every way inferior, in respect of language and general execution, to the elegant Lays of Govirada ; and there is no ground on which the position may be con- troverted, that the rhetomcian and the play-wnght were the same individual.
Internal evidence even 15 quite sufficient to determine the point under con- sideration, independently of the discrepancy offered in the accounts given, severally, Of their extraction, by the rhetorician and dramatist, and by the author of the Gita-govinda. Moreover, 1f, fullowmg Lassen, we account as spurious the stanza with which this collection of poems, accordmg to many manuscripts, terminates, we are left without any notice whatever, by its au- thor, of his parentage. And why, if the Chandrdloka and Prasanna-righava were also his, should he have consigned to them a specification which he has denied to 1118 foremost performance ?
The couplet above mentioned, which Professor Lassen presumes to be forged, 13 Ohjected to, by him, on the assumption that the Bhojadeva whom Jayadeva is made, by it, to name as lus father, must be the sovereign of Dhara, But Bhojadeva or Bhojardja 15 by no means an appellation of unique incidence More than one chieftam is ce.tamly known to have borne it; and it has not yet been shown that, among persons so called, the grammarian, for mstance, has any clam to be regarded as a royal patron rather than as an actual maker of books. In a word, it 1s not imperative to take sucli a termunation as deva or rdja to be indicative of rank. It may be part of a name ; as in Varadaraja, Govindardja, Jayadeva, and Harshadeva.
The name of Jayadeva’s mother 18 wntten, by Lassen, Ramadevi. My own manuscripts have Vamadevi Jayadeva’s father is called Bhojadeva, by the Brahman Raychand, in his metrical Hindi translation of the Gita- govinda, the Gita-govindddars’a.
It remains to speak of the Réma-géta-govinda, a poem on the incongruity of whose title Lassen justly anmmadverts. Gita-govinda, Prolegomena, p- VI. This wretched affaw purports to have, for its author, one Jayadeva, -
ry
644
of Janakapura. So much the poetaster lumself tells us; and I know not on what authority Professor Wilson—Machenzie Collection, Vol. I., p, 103— concludes him to be one with the poet of Radha and Kushna. The subject of the Rdéma-gita-govinda 1s that of the Hdmdyana. [४७ extent is 360 couplets; divided into six cantos, which bear the designations of Sdnanda- raghunandana, Vinta-paras'urdma, Jagannivdsa-pravésu, Hanumad-dya. mana, Lanké-vyaya, and Réma-rdjdbhisheka.
ए. 35, notes, 1. 31. S‘ankara, it should seem, has wildly been assigned to the eighth century before the Christian era. See Mr. B H. Hodgson’s Il. lustrations of the Literature and Religion of the Buddhists, p. 18, foot. note.
2. 35, notes, 1 34. The notion that Gaudapada was pupil of S'uka, the son of Vyasa, 1s generally 1eceived by the Brahmans. See, for this associa- tion, Colebrooke’s reference to the S’ankara-vyaya: Muscellancous Essays, Vol. 1. p. 104.
Gangadhaia Saraswati, author of the Datidtreya-charitra, a metrical composition in the Marahattt language, deduces his own diseipular descent, through S’uka and Gandapada, from S’iva, as follows: Sankara, Vishnu, Brahma, Vasishtha, S’akti, Paras’ara, Vyasa, S’uka, Gaudapadda Acharya, Govinda Acharya, S’ankara A’chdiya, Vis‘waripa, Bodha Gin, Jnéna Gin, Sinhala Gin, I’s'wara Tirtha, Nrismha Tirtha, Vidyd Tirtha, 84198 Tirtha, Bharati Tirtha, Vidydranya, S’ripéda, Vidy4 Tirtha, Malaydnanda, Deva Tirtha, Viinda Saraswati, Ydédavendra Saraswati, Krishna Saraswati, Nn- sinha Saraswati, and Gangadhara Saraswati. Gangidhara had seven fellow- students, all bearing the title of Saraswati: Bala, Krslna, Upendra, ६ dhava, Sadananda, Jnanajyoti, and Siddhendra.
The Mitdkshard, a commentary on the Brahma-sitra, by Annam Bhatta, son of Tirumala, contains a list, identical, down to S’ankara Acharya, with the foregomg; eacept that Vasishtha 1s preceded by Brahma and Liahma.
Gaudapada, 1t appears credible, belongs to the very preciuet of the age of fable.
P. 36, notes, 1 9. Bhdnu Bhatta, in the Dwaita-nirnaya-siddhdnta-san- graha, speaks of the author of a treatise having the name of Dwaita-nu Nuyda, as being lus paternal giandfathei. But his own work, which cites 1t, proves that he does not mean the Dwacta-nirnaya of Vachaspati Mis’ra. आदा Bhatta’s parents were Nilakantha Bhatta and Ganga. The tatle of Bhatta 19 borne by Mimansakas
P 36, notes, 1, 29 The Ratnéhara, compiled under the patronage of Chandes'’wara, embraces at least seven sections, entitled Aritya, Dana, bya 00409 S'uddhi, Pia, Vide, and Grihasthe, OL these, Vachaspati
OU)
he was assisted, in mepamng it, by Ananta Diksluta, son of Vis’wanatha Dikshita. The father of Bhayd Gancs’a कीति was Bhava Vis’waudtha Dikshita; and, af the latte: be one with Vis’wandtha Dikshita, and if Bhava Ganes’a Dikshita be brother of Ananta Dikshita, we ale enabled to form a pretty correct estimate as to the time of Viana Blukshu. For Narayana Bhatta’s youngest brother’s second son, Raghunatha Bhatta, dates his Adla- tattwa-vvechana m Samvat 1677, or A. D, 1620, Vijnana may be placed fifty or sixty years earher.
P 48, 1. 1. Cancel the sentence ^ {0 the end,” &e.
P. 50, notes, ], 1, Substitute as follows: The words vikrita ‘modified’ and vathdrika ‘modnicational,’ as synonymes of sdétwika ‘pure,’ must be taken to denote, by emmence, the highest of the three cgotistie transmuta- tions of nature; these being held to result from that disturbance m the equipoise of its ingredients, by vutue of which it becomes eductive. Misapprehending the retrospective reference of the term vzkrita, mm the twenty-fifth kémkd, M Saint वपता desertbes ‘pure’ egotism as almost 0९110 at once ४ modification and not a modification.
Heotism, at the very instant of its emanation, assumes three distinct shapes. It would, accordmgly, preclude doubt, if the particular sort of ego- tism had m contemplation were always characterized by its speciul epithet. Of egotism divested of qualifications the Sankhya teaches us nothmg.
There is no such thing m the scheme.
P, 55, notes, 1. 21. A passage 10 Hippolytus which runs counter to this statement, escaped my notice. avg premised the names of Valentine, Heracleon, and Ptolemans, Hippolytus proceeds in these words: Kat yap गणम torw doy) rav वदा piovas ayénytos, Udbapros, éxardAymros, daepuvdnros, १614105, Kal काण, THs -yeverews 471५ TOV
yerouevov. Omnium Heeresium Refutatio, ed. Miller, p. 185.
BIBLIOTHECA INDICA; A COLLECTION OF ORIENTAL WORKS,
PUBLISHED UNDER THE PATRONAGE OF THE
Hon, Court of Directors of the Bast Envia Company, AND THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF THE
A ATC ¢ 6hU6€U9mY’ A.
A T wo
The Enemenrs or Pority, by Kémanpakr. Edited by Bibu RAJENDRALAL Mittra. Already published, Fasciculus I. bemg No. 19.
The Laurra Vistara, or Memoirs of the Life and Doctrines of SAgya Srnwa. Efited by Bébu RAsenpRatdu Mirrra, Already published, Fascicul: I, and II. Nos. 51 and 73.
ioe Prékrita Grammar of Kr adiswara. dited by Babu RAvENDRALAL ITTRAs
An English translation of the CanAnpogya Upanisnap of the Sama Veda, By Babu RAvENDRALAL Mittra, Already published, Fasciculus I. No. 78.
The SarvaDarsaNa SANGRATA; or an Epitome of the different systems of Indian Philosophy. By MApnavAcudnya. Edited by Pandita [s’waRacHaNDRA Vipyisicana, Aleady published, Fasciculus I. No. 63.
The VepAnta 30748. Edited by Dz. Rozr, Published, Fasciculi I. and II. Nos. 64 and 89.
The Tarrrreiva Sannirié of the Black Yajur Veda. Edited by Dr. 2. Roun. Published, Fasciculi I. 11. 11. IV. V. Vi. VIL. and VIII. Nos. 92, 117, 119, 122, 131, 133, 134, and 187.
The Tarrrrryia Briumana of the Black Yajur Veda. Edited by Babu RAsENDRALAL Mittra. Publshed, Fasaculs I. and 11. Nos, 125 and 126.
The SGrya-smpDHANTA, with its Commentary the Gidhartha-prakds’aka, Edited by Frrz-Epwarp Haz, A.M. Already published, Fascicul I. 11. and IT. Nos. 79, 105 and 115.
The Tate oF VAsavapaTta’, by SuBANDHU, with its Commentary entitled Darpana. Edited by Firz-EpDwarp Hatz, A. M. Published, Fascicul: I. and II. Nos, 116 and 130,
The Ma’nranprva Pura’wa. Edited by K. M. Bannunsza, already published, 04800011 I. II. and III. Nos, 114, 127 and 140,
* For a lst of the Persian and Arabic works m progress, See No. 180 of the Biblio« heca India.
WORK PU LI HED,
70110 Price, The first two Lectures of the Sanhita of the Rig Veda with the Commentary of Madhava Acharya, and an Eng lish translation of the text. Hdited by Dr 9, Roer, NOS TOA: 14 40 0 The Buhad Avanyaka Tpaniho4, with the Commentary of Sankara Achdrya, amu the Gloss of Ananda Giri, Edited by Dr. 9. Roer, Nos, 5 to 13, 16 and 18 1100 An English Translation of the above Upamshad and Com mentary. Nos, 27, 38 and 185, sa ‘iy 8:00 The Chhandogya Upamshad, with the Commentary of S’an- kara Acharya, and the Gloss of Ananda Gin, Hduted by Dr. 9. Roe, Nos, 14, 15, 17, 20, 28 and 25 . 600 The Pattviga AiHavaye and S'wétds/watara Upanishads with Come. ;, dc Nos ne 38, and 84 धि . 800 The fsa, Kena, Katha, Pras’na, Mundaka, and Mandukya Upanishads, with Commentary, &e, Hdited by Dr. 9 Roer, Nos. 24, 26, 28, 29, 80 and 81, ,,, ,, 4 १.१.५११ 600
The Tmttirtya, Aittaréya, S’wétas’watara, Kena, Is’, Katha, Prasna, Mundaka and Mandukya Upamshads Translated from the Origmal Sanskrit, by Dr. E, णन Nos. 41 and 50 ak 200 Division of the Categories of the Nyaya Philosophy, with a Commentary aud an English Translation, by Dr, B. Roer, Nos. 82 and 36, 200 The SabitvaeD 1५ or Mirror of Composition, by Visw | \ ५4९1 aye edited by De, 9, Roor, Nos 36, 37, 58, 91 and 55, saa 900 Tho Chaitanya Chandrodaya Nataka of Kavikarnapura, Edit ed by Babu Rajendralal Mittra, Nos. 47, 48 and 80 The Urrara Narsmapa Cuarrra, by Sri Hansa, with the Commentary of Narayana दपण by 07, 1, Roser Pas (प्रा. IL TI. IV. V. Vi. VIL. VOL IX. +. XE and ATI, Nos, 39, 40, 42, 45, 46, 52, 67, 72, 87, 90, 120, 128 and 124, , . sie The SAvxnys-Paav emywi-Peferc, Hilited by Fitz. Edward Tall, A. M., and to be translated by J. B Ballantyne, LL. 0, Fasecul 1, IL and 1, bomg 00.41 11111 sraiceenheconaven 102, 4
Rediteed Piee.
7 80